The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Journalisming

What about Jeff Sessions? And what about Ajit Pai?

First, I think we have already talked about Sessions. Your contention that he perjured himself is utterly without merit, so his nominations hardly makes Trump a train wreck.

I would not pay too much attention to opposition propaganda. Propaganda is, after all, just propaganda.

No, I know Sessions' history and stances. His perjuring did happen, and has merit. You could argue that he misspoke, fine. But considering he was coached, that he still managed to screw up so royally during the hearing still transmits the man's staggering incompetence.

I previously brought up the two, but as a quick reminder:

Sessions hates state rights, and pretty much anyone's rights. He believes that Federal money and manpower should be used to fill for-profit prisons with people who aren't bothering anyone else, and also believes that instead of policing the police, and giving oversight to state and local level law enforcement, that those agencies should be completely unaccountable. Which is a pretty strong break with established operation - pretty much everyone knows that to hold power accountable, you need some oversight. How dumb? I mean, the man wants to reignite the drug war for fucks sake, even though pretty much everyone not named Jeff Sessions knows what a clusterfuck catastrophe it was - and still is. He has also been a strong proponent of civil forfeiture, which is basically in line with his other "law enforcement" stances, that is: where the police degrade themselves to the point of common thuggery, blatantly stealing from people convicted of no crimes.

Ajit Pai's initial moves at FCC include moving to remove transparency requirements on big telecom, that were instituted to prevent them from basically defrauding their customers.

I can guarantee that I'm not under the influence of leftist "propaganda"

I do however, remember pretty much everything I read. This gives me a relatively clear view of the overall picture, given how much I do read, and have read for the past quarter century. Jeff Sessions is human filth, with no redeeming principles to speak of, when judged by the standards of the Age of Reason, and Northern European Anglo Christian Lockean intellectual and political heritage. He is, quite frankly, more suited to running a gulag in some Southeast Asian despotism than wielding power in a supposedly free society.

Cite the relevant law on perjury then, and demonstrate how Session's testimony satisfies the necessary elements of the crime required to secure a conviction.

Sorry, but your mere opinion on the matter is not convincing.

As far as the other factors you bring up, these may be positions with which you disagree, but those are mere political differences. We sort out political differences in this country through elections, and if the candidate who won the election makes policy decisions with which you disagree, well there is always the next election.

My opinion that Sessions should have known better, but it is uncharitable interpretation unsupported by additional evidence that he perjured himself. Without additional evidence it won't even pass 'balance of probabilities', least 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard.

Until there is actual evidence, Russia Ties appears to be left's version of Benghazi.

By your logic, pretty anything is "mere political difference". Technically accurate, though by the same metric, the differences in governing philosophy between the traditional US, and China, are also "mere". Heck, China actually imprisons fewer people.

It is interesting that you articulate the position of elections justifying anything. As a matter of fact, Sessions will in all likelihood get away with all sorts of vileness in his capacity as AG. At least, unless a good chunk of the GOP grows something resembling a spine, and moral backbone. And elephants might fly. It still wont change the fact that he is a destructive social force that pulls the nation away from its founding principles, and makes the country an objectively worse place for everyone.

There is a reason that no one has taken to actually defending Sessions, instead just brushing off him off as "differences of opinion" - because he isn't defensible. There is also a reason the Bill of Rights wasn't written to say "And the govt, whenever its agents do so feel the whim, are free to both examine the belongings and papers of any person at any time. Additionally, should said govt agents so decide, the belongs and personal affects of citizens may also be confiscated and appropriated for whatever use said govt agents deem fit."

Get back to me when Sessions does something you think is illegal. Given your lack of understanding of what perjury consists of, research the applicable laws before wasting anyone's time.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/al-franken-jeff-sessions-perjury/index.html

Fwiw

I'd stop standing on that platform, your speculation on what the outcome of an actual trial would be isn't any more valid than anyone elses. As you say, mere opinion.

I'm still curious to see any sort of defense of Session's, or Trump's for that matter, actual stances and policies.

Let's break out the notepad:

Trump attacked Hillary for her Goldman Sachs connections, then handed Treasury back over to them. That was a head scratcher.

Rex Tillerman for State? Odd choice, but the jury's still out on that one. Early indications are things not going well, but who's to say? Too early to be certain.

Sessions for AG, who has already indicated his intent to pull back Federal oversight in regards to corruption, civil rights abuses, and wants to re-institute programs of federally backed civil asset forfeiture, which is govt stealing stuff from people without actually convicting them of a crime. Also wants to reignite the failed drug war, and fill up private for-profit prisons. The most charitable thing that can be said for that, is a huge waste of money, since the drug war has to date provably produced no tangible positive benefits. (but many provable negatives)

Wants to drastically increase military spending. What the hell? I mean, seriously? Is someone somewhere worried that China has figured out how to get a hundred millions troops over thousands of miles of ocean, past the Pacific Fleet, and intends to launch a ground invasion of the US? Seems odd, unless someone is plotting to waste another trillion dollars on another useless foreign occupation somewhere that brings no actual benefits to the US.

Wants to increase NSA surveillance of US citizens. Seems odd, considering it doesn't do anything regarding terrorism, the ostensible reason for it. I mean, even for 9/11, before the whole world knew of NSA capabilities, (and before they expanded) the hijack plotters didn't even send emails, they were so paranoid. Instead, they left messages sitting in an inbox, where another plotter would go to the same cafe, log on to the PC, and access the unsent folder of the same email account, as a type of dead drop. Never mind the statistical improbability of detecting terror (go Google base rate fallacy) via bulk data mining, the real terrorists were practicing techniques to avoid the NSA even before it was on steroids.

Building a Mexican wall? How's that gonna work? Israel has a hard time keeping Hamas and others from tunneling under their own walls, which are relatively tiny compared to the Mexican border, and they heavily monitor with sensitive equipment. The international cartels are far better funded than Hamas and their ilk, thanks to aforementioned drug war. That and... thousands of miles of open water on each side of the country, and simple homemade balloons being able to lift over walls with ease, etc. I'm not even getting into the propriety of the intent - just the actual implementation is stupid and wasteful.

Wheres the good stuff, that's supposed to make America Great Again? So far all I can see is gratuitous waste, stupidity, and apathy.

It seems to me that everything you bring up boils down to continued election butthurt. All of this stuff is either things you fear that Trump will do which are the things voters elected Trump to do, or things Trump doesn't intend to do, but are what the left attributes to him hoping to incite fear.

I can't help you with respect to the policies Trump campaigned on. Voters in most states elected him to do those very things, so the only thing you can do is hope for is better luck next election. That isn't very promising because if Trump makes good on his campaign promises, the people who elected him the first time will probably reelect him.

I don't expect him to do any of the fear mongering acts you cite, but if he does, let us all know.

So in other words, you don't have any justification for, or words of support for the actual policies. Instead, you seem to be trolling me with accusations of election butthurt, which seems odd considering that I didn't vote for Hillary either, nor is the current discussion related to Hillary, or the election in any manner. The issue here isn't supporting Trump in the election, but rather ongoing support for Trump and defense of his policies.

Also, everything I outlined is in fact either the current stated policy intent, or in the actual process of implementation. (Things like spending require Congressional involvement of course) Where I fear they will come to pass, this is because the Trump administration is literally standing on a podium and shouting it to the world, or else has already done them - like appointing Mnunchin to Treasury, so I'm not sure why you would seem to question the veracity of the assertions.

The question and issue is not whether some people supported some of the stated policies, or why some people voted for Trump, but rather the ongoing support. Justifications for the decisions and policies is the topic here, if any exist.

Look, I get how many people feel like Trump is a big poke in the ole' eye to the left. Honestly, if there is a silver lining in Trump, its that the coastal SJWs are wailing into their $10 lattes, feeling as disconsolate as many of us in the heartland felt when Obama revealed his own disdain for middle America, when he sneeringly brushed off the Midwest as bitter people who "cling to guns and religion". I get that, I really do. How could I not, when my neighborhood was a literal forest of Trump yard signs (yeah, an exaggeration - houses are too far apart and often separated by actual forest), the churches outnumber the stars in the sky (mild exaggeration), and most days I can hear a neighbor or two doing target practice within earshot (not an exaggeration). What I don't get is the insistence so many Trump supporters have in trolling the rest of us.


You said that Trumps actions and plans were features, and not bugs. Fine. I'm just looking for a bit of edification on where the features are. As I asked before, where is all the good stuff that is supposed to Make America Great Again?

Thus far, no one can actually point any out. It's like that old Wendy's commercial from the 80's - "Where's the beef?"