The US has a proportional system to prevent a small number of states from dominating the rest. — raza
And Strzok was a senior investigator. It says enough. — raza
I don't think it's immaterial. Here is a guy who has shown contempt for the electoral process, and has gone so far as to suggest that "We'll stop it" (referring to Trump becoming President). And give me a break, I'm not an idiot, I know fully well that "we" doesn't refer to the American people, as he blatantly lied to Congress. "We" refers to the FBI. He started the investigation into Trump because he hated Trump.I see attempts by Goodlatte to badger him and his Democratic colleagues on a point that's really immaterial. — Benkei
On top of that, he's an outright immoral character who lied and cheated on his wife, and then claimed to Congress that he ALWAYS said the truth all the while admitting to hurting his wife. Really, a despicable man, and I think he should be in jail. — Agustino
If you knew anything about the UK you wouldn't even need a poll to know that a low class moron like Trump would have little to no support. Get over it, the sycophancy isn't worth it — Baden
Another non-sequitur. People who fix roads may be low class in your view. In mine they're working class. Trump is low class. Learn the difference. And if you think Trump is not the elite, you're deluded — Baden
I don't think it's immaterial. Here is a guy who has shown contempt for the electoral process, and has gone so far as to suggest that "We'll stop it" (referring to Trump becoming President). And give me a break, I'm not an idiot, I know fully well that "we" doesn't refer to the American people, as he blatantly lied to Congress. "We" refers to the FBI. He started the investigation into Trump because he hated Trump. — Agustino
In a written statement offered before he testified before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday, Strzok pointedly noted that there was no effort on his part to keep Trump from winning the White House — and, further, that he was one of only a few people who could have potentially leaked details from the investigation in an effort to block Trump’s victory.
“In the summer of 2016,” Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”
That's just the cherry on top of the cake, the main thing is that he's corrupt to the bone, and his moral character does nothing to change that perspective of him. At least if he was an upstanding human being who had a track record of self-sacrifice and unselfishness, then maybe we ought to be more lenient in the way we interpret his texts. But that's not the case.
What is even more despicable is the way the Democrats are trying to unfairly defend him. — Agustino
I don't think it's immaterial. — Agustino
Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”
There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump tried to obstruct justice, and use state agencies in order to further ideological goals without regard for the rule of law. Here is a guy who WROTE that he and the FBI will stop Trump - what better evidence do you want?!You must admit your comments are little bizarre considering your history of support for Trump and excuses for his despicable behavior towards woman. Strzok pales in comparison. — Baden
Sure, it is a possibility, but a highly unlikely one given the context. He was not Hillary, so "We" cannot be Hillary. It must be a group that includes him. Granted that he worked for the FBI, AND they were working on a Trump investigation, the "we" most likely refers to the FBI. You are a lawyer. Do you deny that this is the most plausible explanation, especially given the animosity he displayed towards Trump coupled with his not so upstanding character?So since that's a plausible explanation and I assume some form of standard of proof is necessary, you don't really have anything to go on as you can't read minds. — Benkei
With regard to this particular side of their character, equally bad.5.6k
But let's go back to moral character with regard to women because you brought it up. At least tell me this, who seems the worse offender to you, the pussy grabbing, porn star fucking, alleged sexual abuser, Trump or this random FBI agent who cheated on his wife? — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.