Nicely written.

Words are a medium that reduces reality to abstraction for transmission to our reason, and in their power to corrode reality inevitably lurks the danger that we become corroded too. One might need to encounter reality in some field where words should play no part at all.

A quick peak at the toxic Twittersphere reveals a competing narrative occurring re: Bill Barr. The Trumpist camp believes that Barr is going to clean up the DOJ, rectifying the unjust culture permeating that branch of government. The anti-Trumpist camp believes the exact opposite, that Bill Barr, at Trump’s behest, is irrevocably damaging the DOJ.

Neither side gives the other any benefit of the doubt.

Why? Somehow forgetting that the US has really been a beacon of the Free Wold?

That your country has had this crazy idea of being for democracy and freedom where for example my EU stays more silent. What so strange about that?

I am consistently told how awful the country is and the becons of liberty are going out around the world.

Your views on government are laughable.

You want to give away your own power and give it to the government. That explains your level servility.

He owns the resorts. He relies on their cheap labor.

4 out of 5 star reviews from employees. Sounds like a great company to work for.

https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Trump-Organization/reviews?fcountry=ALL

I thought Trump hired them.

Now you’re getting defensive. I’m trying to figure out which policies of Trump’s you like. He has done all of the things I asked about. Also, he employs undocumented workers at some of his resorts. It used to be all of them until he got called out for hypocrisy.

To be fair they had fake documents.

I don’t live in America either.

One could certainly make that argument, but it is strange.

One would think they would prefer someone like Bernie. The Hong Kong protesters loved Trump too. It was very interesting hearing them sing the American anthem and waving American flags. Strange world.

Funny that they’re Russian. Why do the Russians like Trump so much?

Yeah, I don’t know. He’s been harder on them than anyone else.

This is funny. Russian pranksters dupe Sanders into believing he is talking with Greta Thunberg. I wonder if this counts as him soliciting help from a foreign national in his campaign. Hopefully it doesn’t come back to bite him.

The "public"? "Private citizens"? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the word "lobbyist"?

There are around 14,000 lobbyists in Washington. Well over 3 billion dollars gets spent every year on lobbying.

Now look again at the research about which segment of the population ends up getting what they want. Here's a hint: it's no where close to the majority of people.

Yes, people like you and I. It is our first amendment right to petition, to influence the government. It’s one of the most important ways to do so. It worked in the case of slavery, for instance.

Roger Stone is indeed asking for a new trial. Just crazy.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/483188-roger-stone-asks-for-new-trial

Personally I think it's a fair decision in the McCabe case because he was already fired. But I do not think it is fair in the case of others.

What is he saying? I haven’t been following it.

They are saying the DOJ broke the plea agreement. It's complicated but that's the essential point. more heavy-handed recommendations and all that.

I’ve been following that case closely. If what Flynn’s attorney’s are claiming is true, it will be a disaster for the Mueller investigation and the DOJ

That's a false equivalence. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying as a plea deal - they had other things on him. Had lyng been the only issue, he would have had no motivation to accept the deal.

Sure, they are not equivalent, but it is true they were charged for lying to the FBI (Papadopolous, Gates, van der Zwaan) whereas in this case no charges were recommended at all.

Do you think people should or should not be charged with lying to the FBI?

Like Bernie?

So you take the line of blaming the politicians. Fine. Take a look at the amount of money needed to run a campaign. If you don't have the money, you're not in it. The media will ignore you, you won't be able to buy advertisements, etc. Those who fund your campaign you are beholden to. This has been the reality for over 100 years and since the rise of the PR industry. To blame any one thing, like politicians, is simpleminded. Of course many are weak, but there's an obvious filtration process: those who don't accept the money and rationalize accepting it don't get elected. So what do we end up with, given this condition?

The true power, however, lies in the hands of concentrated wealth, which in this society is found in the form of big business (mainly multinational corporations), run by a small segment of the population. As has been pointed out, this small segment gets nearly everything on their agenda legislatively and otherwise, through lobbying and the aforementioned bribes ("campaign contributions").

It's not only their fault, and it's not that they're all evil people. But we have to at least acknowledge their disproportionate influence on our society and our laws. It's all tilted in their favor, predictably. You have to notice this.

Of course I notice this. But who is doing the favoring?

Lobbying is an important avenue through which the public can petition the government, and it’s far game for any private citizen, group or corporation. People will attempt to entice politicians with money, of course. Even so, the final decision of any government legislation does not lie with the lobbyists; it lies with the government. That’s true power.

And now you know where we are coming from.

So long as you admit it, yes I do.

True, the rich and powerful, whatever their party, always get away with crap that would get us lesser folk in serious trouble.

As you might expect I will have to accept this with extreme suspicion. The defense, Michael Bromwich, was the inspector general of the Clinton DOJ and appointed federal prosecutor for Obama. That is of course conspiratorial on my part but, good god, it’s just too convenient.

Edit to add: I was wrong about Bromwich being prosecutor. He was defense. The prosecutor was Molly Gaston, who prosecuted Rick Gates for lying.

I wouldn’t be happy either. To me this is more evidence of the two-tiered approach to justice.

It appears to be so. That’s a shame given that he lied to the FBI with all these others being jailed for doing the same. So does that Waylay your fears about the Trump DOJ?

Another great example of how it seems some are unable to not view things through their assumed lense.

The movie makes no mention of climate change. We might as well assume that since the flood doesn't play a major factor in the movie, the movie must be telling us that climate change won't be a major issue either. Since the family is only temporarily displaced by the flood, Bong Joon Ho means to communicate that climate alarmism is false.

I was trying to see it through Bong’s lenses rather than my own, considering his past films. It seems obvious to me that the flood was referencing the floods of 2014. But your take that it is a subversively conservative film, isn’t this your assumed lense? That might be the point of Bong’s all along.

Any advice on how I should further conduct myself in the future?

His credibility is highly suspect. I have found that he can't be honest with himself or other's. After reading responses to mine and other poster's.., there is no consistency in his arguments except to say that he complains that it's too dark while stubbornly refusing to take his head out 'the sand.

LOL

You promised me an analysis about my right-wing extreme views and how I am a danger to democracy. Is that ever going to arrive? or....

Perhaps, but he corrupts the space. So while you're here, I request he be banned or restricted to the lounge. Which is too bad, becouse in other threads he has demonstrated he can make sense and be not himself altogether a corruption. Would you tolerate a pet that had decided your leg was a fire-hydrant?

I don't mind some constructive criticism on how I should conduct myself, Tim. Metaphors about pissing on your leg is fine and dandy, but anything realistic I can do to alleviate your stress would be more helpful.

Oh my. I'm getting embarrassed for you. Seriously, maybe you should take a break from this thread and try to make a contribution elsewhere.

That's just your fantasy getting the best of you again. I suppose it's a good thing your opinion means very little to me.

You guys have no qualms in uncritically believing and promoting the flimsiest of cases to justify your conspiracy theorizing.

I think Bong Joon Ho also contrasted the effects of climate change on the rich and poor. When the river flooded and the rains started, the result for the Parks was a mild inconvenience—having to leave a camping trip earlier than desired. But for the Kims it was disastrous, flooding their home and neighborhood.

The question was loaded, it was poorly asked. There is no indication Trump heard it properly. There is no indication Trump was talking about sending Guiliani to Ukraine. Your unforgiving word-parsing and contextomy is the same kind of nonsense that leads us to the fake news such as the CNN article you posted.

Would you like me to repost it? If you're scared say you're scared!

LOL

Anytime now....

You're not going to deflect that easy. I don't care what CNN says. I care about what Trump says to Geraldo in that interview. You can listen to the audio. Geraldo asks him about sending Giuliani to Ukraine and he admits that he did and that he isn't sorry for it. Whereas previously, as per your own comment:

"According to Giuliani it was the state dept. that requested he travel to Ukraine. I think if Trump personally requested him to do it, Trump might be in trouble."

You used a CNN article to make a point. The CNN article claimed Trump openly admitted to something he didn't. Is this true or false?

Rivera's question was a loaded question. Trump never admitted sending Giuliani to Ukraine and their past statements say otherwise.

Your credibility is in the shitcan, you didn't answer my question would you like me to repost it?

Still awaiting your sober analysis.

I'm not saying that he admitted to sending Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents. I'm saying that he admitted to sending Giuliani to Ukraine. It's right there in the audio. Previously both he and Giuliani denied that Giuliani was in Ukraine at Trump's behest.

So is CNN telling the truth?

Yo Dumpertrumper,

I didn't see where you answered the question?

Using your bosses Trump-speak, be a man and grab those questions by the balls, or by the pussy if that works better for you!

LOL

I answered your questions many times. Still awaiting your analysis.

I look forward to you eating those words after listening to the podcast.

Keep looking.

He did not admit it. Quote him admitting anything close to openly admitting sending his attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents.

I’ve answered all your questions, so let’s hear your analysis.

Here's some potential effects:
-prosecutors wishing to curry favor might give him what he wants
-prosecutors might feel undercut and harden their position against Stone
-the judge may be influenced, either for or against
-the attorney general might feel prompted to review the sentencing recommendation. How often does THIS happen? He obviously can't do that in every case, so this is uneven justice.
- The attorney general might consciously or unconsciously apply more leniency that he would otherwise.
-per Barr: it makes it difficult for him to do his job
-it might have a negative effect on the people working in the justice dept if they perceive this as pressure to go soft on a friend.

All of these effects are caused by personal motivations, desires and feelings. If a judge or attorney or attorney general are influenced by a tweet they are in the wrong job.

Emboldened after his impeachment acquittal, President Donald Trump now openly admits to sending his attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents, even though he strongly denied it during the impeachment inquiry.

That’s a complete lie, and you’re falling for it. He admitted no such thing.