An aboriginal.

Let's assume that's true. Do you think the name should not be changed? If so, why do you want the name to remain "Redskins"? If you think it should be changed, what is your complaint? If you don't care, why make an issue of it?

I don’t think it should be changed because I like the name and the logo. To me it evokes a brave warrior.

You can huff and puff all you want but that's ultimately just your opinion.

An opinion that I can defend. Your opinion, however, lacks any such argument.

Lies. This is just how the PC police see themselves.

For you. Not everyone has categorically drawn lines between speech that is considered hateful or offensive or just unpleasant and rude, and where political correctness intersects between this and other types insults and expressions, which is why it would have been prudent for the study to have provided a definition, otherwise it allows people like yourself to interpret it in whatever way you want to interpret it, and, in your case specifically, a self-serving way.

It’s just untrue that political correctness has anything to do with hate speech, and it appears that the only one who needs a definition is yourself.

If people are discussing a term over the course of a decade and approaching it from varying angles and perspectives then yeah it would be valuable for the study to provide a working definition to respondents for clarification, especially given that 82% of respondents in this study said that hate speech was a problem.

Hate speech is a problem. But political correctness was never about hate speech.

I would argue it’s one of the worst tactic against hate and violence, for a few reasons. One, we need to know who the haters are, and hate speech is one of the few ways besides violence that they let themselves be known. Two, underground is where hate festers. Without any challenge in the public sphere there is little way to see their ideas combated and made thread-bare by reason and mockery. And third, their persecution gives them the opportunity to champion free speech, which they always take away if ever they achieve power.

As I've pointed out to you before, the study in that article doesn't define political correctness, leaving the term completely open to interpretation per respondent, making the analysis useless.

People have been speaking about, writing about, and have been warning us about political correctness for decades. Quibble all you need, but I wager most people understand the general sense of the term by now.

It wasn't a refusal to tell lies that got Stone in trouble, it was a failure to admit truths that would make the President look bad, and conceivably could result in a case of perjury against Trump. Further, it appears Trump was dangling a pardon to encourage Stone to stay mum. This seems like pure corruption to me, but surely you must at least recognize how bad this looks.

Right, bad optics. I don’t care what people think when justice is on the line. That sort of politics is for the birds.

According to Stone they tried to force him to say things about the president, offering him deals if he had done so. He refused. He was gagged. The jury was stacked. The judge was biased. The perjury was not material. People, including congress itself, lie to congress all the time with no threat of punishment. I think we have different views of corruption.

9 out of 10 Native Americans are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, and in fact many express admiration for it,

88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness.

Once again a few triggered politicos and grievance-mongers ignore the will and voices of their community.

And it's the wrong judgement. The investigations were opened for legitimate reasons, the search warrants and prosecution of Stone were lawful, and no innocent lives were ruined; only guilty lives. But that's the price you pay for being a criminal.

It’s the right judgement. As we now know, government investigators failed to include key sections of the Papadopoulos transcripts in the Page FISA warrants, including denials the campaign "was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks”. We know Papadopoulos was spied on. We know that zero evidence shows Papadopoulos was guilty of any such thing related to Russia. So what was legitimate about it? Not a damn thing.

Your criminals are innocent of everything you once accused them of, so all you can do is be gleeful they got busted for specious process crimes.

We were talking about Roger Stone, remember? You were claiming that his prosecution was unjust because the Mueller investigation and Crossfire Hurricane were illegitimate, and then claimed that the Steele dossier was what lead to these investigations. I'm explaining to you that you're mistaken. Trump firing Comey is what lead to the Mueller investigation and Papadopoulos having advance knowledge of the stolen emails is what lead to Crossfire Hurricane. Both investigations were opened with good reason. And the search warrant for Stone had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.

So all in all, the claim that the investigation into Stone and his subsequent prosecution were unjust is bullshit.

I said his treatment was unjust because he was treated unfairly. As for crossfire and Mueller, both were opened with bad reason. Both were expensive farces. Both ruined the lives of innocent people, and I stand by that judgement.

What's the shame of the highest echelons of American security and intelligence (services) doing their job?

They did their job poorly, as we now know. Not only that but the animus of the lead investigators are well documented.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,”

So how dare the do what they say their priorities are. It's a conspiracy! :grimace:

It’s a shame they let reach and influence the highest echelons of American security, intelligence and media.

And as I pointed out, it wasn't the Steele dossier that lead to the investigation, as the investigation started before the FBI knew about it.

It may be that the Steele dossier was the deciding factor in Page's FISA application, but there's far more to the investigation that just that.

The steele dossier was certainly a part of the investigation, directly leading to spying on American citizens, and Steele gave info to the FBI well into 2017. Not only that, but the Steele dossier was probably Russian disinfo and they knew it. In other words, it all worked out for the Russians thanks to the useful idiots doing their bidding.

What evidence do you have that he intentionally misled Congress? Perhaps I missed it and wouldn’t mind hearing it.

I wasn't talking about Page's FISA order, as that's not what you were talking about. We were talking about the Mueller investigation, and so I assume by extension Crossfire Hurricane, which opened on July 31, 2016.

I stated, “The Steele dossier was payed for by the Clinton campaign and sourced from Russian intelligence, leading to unwarranted spying, investigations and a misinformed western populace, all for the purpose of winning an election—Russian collusion.”

It wasn't flimsy. One of Trump's foreign policy advisors had advance knowledge of the stolen emails. They were also informed by British and other European intelligence agencies about contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian intelligence.

As for Stone, nothing in this search warrant has anything to do with the Steele dossier.

The man who has been investigating the matter for the last year begs to differ. “Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened”.

We’ll see exactly what that means in due course, I’m sure.

I see nothing wrong with the article save for the implication that speaking to Assange and Wikileaks and having interest in the emails (knowledge of which was already public) was somehow a bad thing. It’s not.

Stone maintains that he wasn’t prosecuted because he was covering for the president, but because he refused to lie about the president.

Come on...not ”100% correct“? He lied under oath, which is a crime. Relativists point stands, his conviction for his crime was just and your position that it wasn't just is incorrect.
Is it just hard to admit it sometimes because of the constant mud and dishonesty you have to wade through on here?

I said his treatment was unjust, not his conviction. His conviction has not changed.

Horowitz report was quite explicit:

“We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.”

The start of Crossfire Hurricane was equally as flimsy, and had they not had the Steele report, they would not have spied on Americans.

The Mueller investigation, which started after the election by Trump's appointed Deputy Attorney General had the purpose of winning an election? The FBI investigation, which wasn't made public until after the election, had the purpose of winning an election?

No. If Russians wanted to use active measures in order to destabilize American institutions or democracy, to disparage a political candidate, to meddle in elections, they have done so through the Steele dossier.

You frame these things as if it's the entire government machinery out to get Trump, as if Trump isn't the one ultimately in charge of everything. I can't be bothered to read back on previous posts, but have you at any point held Obama responsible for the FBI under his administration? Would be hypocritical not to do the same for Trump.

Not that I recall. I am unaware of any evidence that Obama is involved in any of this.

Setting aside your partisan viewpoint on the events, every innocent person who has ever been arrested has been treated unfairly. That does not give them the right to lie under oath. In fact, lying under oath will always look suspicious, so it's a bad idea.

I think submitting someone to unjust investigation and treatment, and then convicting them because they weren’t 100% correct during that investigation, warrants leniency, especially for a 70 year old first-time offender. Others are getting let out of jail while he was being thrown in. It would have been certain death for him. I wager you aren’t that callous in real life.

He was raided by an FBI Swat team in the middle of the night with CNN in tow. He was gagged at his trial. His judge and jury forewoman were anti-Trumpers. All because he lied to congress during a farce of an investigation. Note: James Clapper and John Brennan both lies to Congress, but of course they were too busy spying on Americans to receive any punishment.

Because he was treated unjustly and wasn’t given a fair trial.

I love it when you foam at the mouth, Tim. But it’s a shame your insults are as about as good as your arguments.

You're spouting the Trump line about the Mueller investigation being a farce. Even if there were problems with the FISA applications, the investigation was conducted in a legal manner - with legally obtained subpoenas that obligated Stone to tell the truth. He didn't. Why?

You’re spouting the Pelosi line that the Mueller investigation was a legit investigation. The Steele dossier was payed for by the Clinton campaign and sourced from Russian intelligence, leading to unwarranted spying, investigations and a misinformed western populace, all for the purpose of winning an election—Russian collusion. Any indictments?

Stone was raided by a SWAT team with CNN in tow, and for what?

Not according to me and the rest of the 45 million or so Black Americans. My life surely didn't matter when I was walking home at night in my black hospital scrubs and some deputies decided to hop out of their car unholstering the weapon all because they thought my cargo scrub pants were "tactical." My life didn't matter when in graduate school after leaving lecture being stopped by LAPD and having my hands placed on a running car vehicle and when I protested how hot his car hood was being told "don't you people like barbecue?" Surely, BLM then wasn't evident. My life doesn't matter to a cop. They'll see my tattoos and automatically label me a gang members regardless of my education and/or clinical profession.

A couple bad experiences might lead one to use faulty generalizations, and that is probably true for some police as well.

If the police treat you unjustly—excessive use of force, denial of constitutional rights, failure to intervene, indifference to risk of harm—you have legal recourse to sue their jack-boots off.

The prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone was guilty of witness tampering, obstructing an official proceeding, and five counts of making false statements. He's a criminal and ought be in prison.

His sentence (which was less than the guidelines recommended) being commuted is political and unjust.

He’s still guilty and still a felon the last time I checked. Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller probe were a farce. They spied on a political campaign and ruined the lives of people who should not have been investigated, Stone included.

I’ve explained my views on Stone before. I think the investigation and prosecution were political and unjust.

Stone’s sentence commuted. And the outrage is glorious.

I think it’s more in line with a sort of Blanquism: In effect, revolution for the sake of revolution, without any care for what society may look like after. It resembles the paradigm of the typical revolutionary activism, but adorned with a new vocabulary and made public with increasingly diminished returns.

Because the media aren't posting comments on here, whereas you are.

But less flippantly, I went over that here. Journalists were told by sources they deemed credible that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers and that Trump was briefed on this. It's their job to report this. Their sources were evidently somewhat credible as there really was intelligence that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers – intelligence that warranted months of preparation and briefing allies.

So I ask again, what do you want from them? To only report on things which are public or which have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

I know that if I was given highly classified, highly dubious information, the publication of which could ruin fact-finding missions and put intelligence sources lives at risk, I wouldn’t publish it, especially if it was for the purpose of making the president look bad.

I wonder why you’d quibble about my use of the word “gossip” while leaving the media’s hysteria, which perhaps ruined all avenues of finding the truth of the matter, untouched.

It wasn't credible enough for him to do anything, but was proved enough to worry him, and was credible enough that the Trump administration did something about it; according to O'Brien they have spent months preparing options, briefed the Pentagon, and briefed allies.

Then what is the problem again?

It was credible enough to spend months preparing options and to brief allies and to worry that general.

It wasn’t credible enough to do anything, according to McKenzie.

“I found it very worrisome, I just didn't find that there was a causative link there," Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with a small number of reporters.

‘The intel (intelligence) case wasn't proved to me -- it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's often true in battlefield intelligence,” said McKenzie.

“You see a lot of indicators, many of them are troubling many of them you act on. But, but in this case there just there wasn't enough there I sent the intelligence guys back to continue to dig on it, and I believe they're continuing to dig right now, but I just didn't see enough there to tell me that the circuit was closed in that regard.”

He added that force protection levels in Afghanistan are always high “whether the Russians are paying the Taliban or not." McKenzie said the insurgent group has always focused its attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan, though that has ceased under the current U.S. peace agreement with the Taliban.

“Over the past several years, the Taliban have done their level best to carry out operations against us, so nothing is practically changed on the ground in terms of force protection, because we have a very high force protection standard now, and that force protection standard's going to continue into the future,” said McKenzie.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-general-doubts-russian-bounty-program-killed-us/story?id=71653874

You said "[Russian bounties] wasn’t raised to [Trump's] attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it."

But the intelligence on Russian bounties isn't gossip. It's credible enough that the administration spent months preparing options and briefed allies.

You use the euphemism “intelligence”; I use the word gossip.

It wasn’t credible enough to brief the president or Vice President or the gang of eight. None of it matter anyways, because the leaks have ruined any chance at verification, putting everyone involved at risk.

He didn't say that the Russia bounties is a hoax. He says that "we've been working for several months on options for the President". I don't think they do that on gossip.

Yes, he said the reporting that the president was briefed was a hoax.

Again, more than gossip.

If you don’t like the word use another one. Rumors? Whispers? Tales?

There is no fact that Trump doesn’t read intelligence reports. It is fake news because the story is, according to the administration, false.

You make the most negative possible assumptions about this, and you also assume the mind-states of the president in the worst possible ways. You parrot the partisan news and the line of the democrat party, so if you don’t like hearing the other side of the story, you might want to include it in your analysis from here on out.

It’s gossip. Robert C. O’Brien also said the reporting was a hoax, and that the information was unverified and not corroborated. This is why you should probably view the context rather than taking on faith what the WaPo tells you to.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?473567-1/national-security-adviser-robert-obrien-president-previously-briefed-russian-bounties

If you truly believe the intel was not credible, why did you blast Schiff?

The publicly available information on this intelligence does not support your view that it wasn't "credible". It was unproved, but that doesn't imply it shouldn't be a cause of of concern. - it was not presented as a questionable, unsupported rumor. It was not a "hoax" as Trump initially alleged, and it WAS in the written briefing material he received. A competent President would have known it was not a hoax - he had the information, but failed to read it.

There's no way to spin this in way that is positive for Trump.

But there is a way to spin it so it is negative for Trump. Hence the leaker, the Democrats, the fake news singing the same songs in unison. They want hearings on unverified information, the leaks of which may have compromised ongoing intel and operations and even lives.

Suppose Schiff was derelict. Does this somehow imply Trump was not?

The bounty issue was conveyed to Trump in his written intelligence briefings - which his senior staff also receive. Trump is derelict on an ongoing basis for failing to read these, but even if we set that aside because everyone knows he doesn't read them - why wasn't this verbally raised to his attention by his staff? Trump is responsible for the activities, and inactivities, of his staff. Their incompetence is his problem - he appointed them. Compound this with the fact that Trump's initial reaction was that it was a MSM hoax, which was clearly wrong.

I couldn't care less if Schiff gets investigated. It has zero bearing on Trump's dereliction of duty.

It wasn’t raised to his attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it.