How did you manage to cut and paste copies of the text. Can you explain to me how to do that?
If this is addressed to me, I didn't copy and paste from the text. The link above is from an online excerpt included in an Axios article on the book when it was published.
Even if you could just point out your reasons and evidence you have that the excerpt is full of lies or even just state to me that even if you true, you agree with the Justice deartments actions I'd be willing to read it.
I am not sure what you are asking here.
I can't gurantee I'd agree with you but I'd at least here a coherent and short argument from your side. I just won't want an emotion pie throwing contest.
We share the same desire to avoid pie throwing and partisan emotional reactions rather than discussion, then. If I take the time to read the book I would expect at minimum you commit to engaging the points raised rather than not responding or changing to other topics. Also, the discussion ends when we agree there is nothing of value to be gained from going further.
How did you manage to cut and paste copies of the text. Can you explain to me how to do that?
If this is addressed to me, I didn't copy and paste from the text. The link above is from an online excerpt included in an Axios article on the book when it was published.
Even if you could just point out your reasons and evidence you have that the excerpt is full of lies or even just state to me that even if you true, you agree with the Justice deartments actions I'd be willing to read it.
I am not sure what you are asking here.
I can't gurantee I'd agree with you but I'd at least here a coherent and short argument from your side. I just won't want an emotion pie throwing contest.
We share the same desire to avoid pie throwing and partisan emotional reactions rather than discussion, then. If I take the time to read the book I would expect at minimum you commit to engaging the points raised rather than not responding or changing to other topics. Also, the discussion ends when we agree there is nothing of value to be gained from going further.
Does "I understand your point of view better now." count as a response? I like the audiobook version but it's going to take a lot of time if we each have to retype the book. Right now I don't even have the ebook or a paper copy.
I was hoping I could just post quotes from the book and you could share with me what you think is a lie and why. I promise no pie throwing in response I just want to know why you believe Carter Page is lying in this book. I'll respect your opinion whether I agree with it or not.
One example is why you might think it was ok for Bill Clinton to give a speech for $500k but not ok for Catter Page to give one at the same place in Russia or Ukraine in exchange for having his travel expenses covered? I'm doing a bad job presenting this issue but if you could get the quote in Carter's book where he lays this out and tell me what is inaccurate about what Carter said I'd very much appreciate it even if we don't utimately agree. Obfuscation and and tiring out the jury was the tactic used in court so short straight answers didn't happen much. I'll try to be quick and to the point as much as I can as well.
Another one maybe you can help me out with is if you can explain to me exactly what Russian collusion means. I don't know much about campaign laws. Is it legal for a foreign country or foreign citizen to donate to a Democrat or Republican campaign? If I were to advocate for peace with Russia given that I'm married to a Russian and my wife and kids are Russian speakers, and I've given a lot of money to my mother in la and brother in law am I in collusion with Russia? Perhaps I'm being monitored by the NSA and don't know it. Does Merrick Garland have the right to wiretap me right now? Do I even have the right to know one way or the other?
Are citizens of foreign countries allowed to post support for a candidate in a US election on social media?
Last edited by ajax18 on Sun Jan 01, 2023 6:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
.
ajax, I don’t understand how you can’t yet see that Trump was a Deep State plant, who’s purpose was to expose political dissenters. Jan. 6 was the payoff.
.
ajax, I don’t understand how you can’t yet see that Trump was a Deep State plant, who’s purpose was to expose political dissenters. Jan. 6 was the payoff.
I promise no pie throwing in response I just want to know why you believe Carter Page is lying in this book. I'll respect your opinion whether I agree with it or not.
Before starting, it would be critical to recognize my concern is with a global tension between those who seek to assert power through authoritarian regimes leveraging narrow nationalist fears or ambitions on one hand; and the value of progressing liberal democratic values that recognize pluralism as an essential characteristic of liberal democratic societies.
The issue for me isn't whether or not Carter Page lies in the book. It's if he is pushing or enabling authoritarianism and nationalism? Or is he supporting liberal democratic values?
By extension, that likely requires discussion on the merits of liberal democratic values vs nationalist authoritarian regimes. A discussion that is just focused on point - counterpoint regarding if Page was honest or dishonest, manipulated or simply the recipient of justice is not likely to be valuable, in my opinion. Why? Because in isolation that isn't meaningful. If, as you seem to have asserted, the issue you see in the Manafort and Page books is the Democrats have taken over the justice system to enforce one party rule, the interesting part of that isn't Manafort or Page. It's the question of if the Democrats have established an effectively authoritarian left-leaning system? Or is it possible the system was antagonistic to those individuals for just causes? And what you see as injustice is the sausage-making of the process that countless folks have had to navigate? And, if so, what is behind the system as it exists?
Or is it possible the system was antagonistic to those individuals for just causes?
All right I'm trying to collect my thoughts. I'm not running away and I'm trying very hard not to be confrontational. I'm just trying to understand your view. I guess I'm coming from the old freedom of speech, constitutional rights, and the idea that the justice and the actions of the justice department should be applied independent of political affiliation. Are you telling me you believe the opposite? Are you telling me that there should be a two tiered justice system, one for populist nationalistic candidates and one for establishment globalist candidates. I guess this is tough as well since Carter Page as an academic sought peace and commerce with Russia which he believed was in the interest of both countries. And he sought to understand and help other Americans understand the Russian perspective. He totally disagreed with Ted Cruz or even Mitt Romney on Russian foreign policy. And I do think he influenced Trump to muse, "Wouldn't it be great for both countries if Russia and the US got along and worked together."
Maybe if we could just try to stick to the excerpt you copied and that I reread. Is there anything Page said there that you believe to be a lie or even embellishment? Or are you just saying, he supported a nationalistic America first and economic nationalist campaign so of course justice was applied differently.
And I apologize for my ignorance on this. But could you give me a specific definition of what exactly Russian collusion is and maybe answer some of the questions I laid out on it in my previous post.
There's a ton of examples. One is that Mitch McConnell is married to a Chinese heir of a big corporate Chinese company and right now stands to inherit a lot of money from that side of his family. If he makes a law that favors this Chinese business is that treason against American business interests or Chinese collusion?
Last edited by ajax18 on Sun Jan 01, 2023 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
One question I have is if there is a clear 2-party judicial system where Republicans are treated harshly and Democrats get off easy, then if you're a criminal, or engaged in really borderline behavior such as vastly underreporting on taxes or funneling money around through foreign accounts, then why not just be Democrat rather than Republican? If it's as Ajax said, that nobody cared about all the illegal stuff involving millions of dollars until the person got close to Trump, then why get close to Trump? Why not be friends with Pelosi and hubby instead, since that's the easy way to get away with the crimes?
In addition to the points h made about authoritarianism and nationalism are the problems with corruption and mobocracy. As I understand it, Alexander Dugin paints the theoretical picture of authoritarian purity, and he isn't a big fan of Putin. Sure, all of the aims Putin aspires to on paper resonate with Dugin, but Putin mostly cares about Putin. Dugin is probably brainwashed, and can't see that Authoritarianism selects for corruption, but in theory at least, we can imagine authoritarianism and nationalism in service of the state and not merely as a pretense for serving the personal whims of the leaders. Trump is a nationalist in name only. It's a pretense for expanding his own personal interests; money and popularity. His fellow republicans in power aren't confused about this at all, but realize he brought something to the table nobody else could, and that is, the ability to "unite the Right" so to speak. It would be one problem for a bunch of ideologues getting together to create an insular, white Christian nation. That is a problem. It's a different problem than a bunch of criminals getting together to pursue their own agendas under the guise of building a white Christian nation and then covering for each other's crimes.
What this could mean for justice. Suppose in world A, the world of ideologues like Ajax creating reprehensible policies and laws, cops follow the instigators around and ticket them disproportionately to other people. That would be wrong. But in world B, you've got yahoos and criminals finding each other and building associations with each other under the banner of a common political umbrella, and it's either you help me criminally and I help you or you look the other way for me and I'll look the other way for you. Loyalty is #1. Well, now you've got another kind of problem. If you want to bring down the mob, you've got to target the family. And so what that means is, let's say I sell a bag of weed; my outcome could be pretty variable depending on the circumstances. However, let's say I sell a bag of weed for for the local mob family that the feds are investigating. I will probably be treated more "unfairly" than had I been acting alone or with a few random thugs.
And so it doesn't move the needle much for me if somebody can point out that a person acting criminally wasn't a target until they began to meld their enterprises with a mob boss like Trump who is building his empire under the pretense of right-wing ideology, and not only that, but quite openly attempting to turn the entire government, all of the branches, into his own personal weapon to see to his own personal needs. And so yes, right now, Trump is public enemy #1, he should be the biggest target in known history for investigation, and anyone promoting their own criminal agendas by getting into business with him should be targeted more harshly than if they are acting alone.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
One question I have is if there is a clear 2-party judicial system where Republicans are treated harshly and Democrats get off easy, then if you're a criminal, or engaged in really borderline behavior such as vastly underreporting on taxes or funneling money around through foreign accounts, then why not just be Democrat rather than Republican? If it's as Ajax said, that nobody cared about all the illegal stuff involving millions of dollars until the person got close to Trump, then why get close to Trump? Why not be friends with Pelosi and hubby instead, since that's the easy way to get away with the crimes?
Carter Page would say that he never was involved in borderline behavior. Paul Manafort would tell you that he didn't know Rick Gates was committing bank fraud in his name. But I'm sure a lot of wealthy people who engage in shady accounting practices do just choose to be Democrat.
And so yes, right now, Trump is public enemy #1, he should be the biggest target in known history for investigation, and anyone promoting their own criminal agendas by getting into business with him should be targeted more harshly than if they are acting alone.
Would you include Carter Page as one promoting his own criminal agenda by choosing to support the Trump campaign? But in case I don't hear from you again for a while, I do thank you for your post and helping me to understand your point of view and ethics a lot better.
Last edited by ajax18 on Sun Jan 01, 2023 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
One question I have is if there is a clear 2-party judicial system where Republicans are treated harshly and Democrats get off easy, then if you're a criminal, or engaged in really borderline behavior such as vastly underreporting on taxes or funneling money around through foreign accounts, then why not just be Democrat rather than Republican? If it's as Ajax said, that nobody cared about all the illegal stuff involving millions of dollars until the person got close to Trump, then why get close to Trump? Why not be friends with Pelosi and hubby instead, since that's the easy way to get away with the crimes?
Carter Page would say that he never was involved in borderline behavior. Paul Manafort would tell you that he didn't know Rick Gates was committing bank fraud in his name. But I'm sure a lot of wealthy people who engage in shady accounting practices do just choose to be Democrat.
And so yes, right now, Trump is public enemy #1, he should be the biggest target in known history for investigation, and anyone promoting their own criminal agendas by getting into business with him should be targeted more harshly than if they are acting alone.
Would you include Carter Page as one promoting his own criminal agenda by choosing to support the Trump campaign?
Classic Xanax. Read the front end, skim down to the last sentence. Read the whole post, you dope.
If this is addressed to me, I didn't copy and paste from the text. The link above is from an online excerpt included in an Axios article on the book when it was published.
I am not sure what you are asking here.
We share the same desire to avoid pie throwing and partisan emotional reactions rather than discussion, then. If I take the time to read the book I would expect at minimum you commit to engaging the points raised rather than not responding or changing to other topics. Also, the discussion ends when we agree there is nothing of value to be gained from going further.
Does "I understand your point of view better now." count as a response? I like the audiobook version but it's going to take a lot of time if we each have to retype the book. Right now I don't even have the ebook or a paper copy.
I was hoping I could just post quotes from the book and you could share with me what you think is a lie and why. I promise no pie throwing in response I just want to know why you believe Carter Page is lying in this book. I'll respect your opinion whether I agree with it or not.
One example is why you might think it was ok for Bill Clinton to give a speech for $500k but not ok for Catter Page to give one at the same place in Russia or Ukraine in exchange for having his travel expenses covered? I'm doing a bad job presenting this issue but if you could get the quote in Carter's book where he lays this out and tell me what is inaccurate about what Carter said I'd very much appreciate it even if we don't utimately agree. Obfuscation and and tiring out the jury was the tactic used in court so short straight answers didn't happen much. I'll try to be quick and to the point as much as I can as well.
Another one maybe you can help me out with is if you can explain to me exactly what Russian collusion means. I don't know much about campaign laws. Is it legal for a foreign country or foreign citizen to donate to a Democrat or Republican campaign? If I were to advocate for peace with Russia given that I'm married to a Russian and my wife and kids are Russian speakers, and I've given a lot of money to my mother in la and brother in law am I in collusion with Russia? Perhaps I'm being monitored by the NSA and don't know it. Does Merrick Garland have the right to wiretap me right now? Do I even have the right to know one way or the other?
Are citizens of foreign countries allowed to post support for a candidate in a US election on social media?
Ajax, you might start with learning about campaign finance laws are and why they exist. That would give you a foundation to start from. Then it would help if you stop talking about “Russian Collusion.” It’s not a significant legal term — it’s a propaganda term favored by Trump. The relevant legal term is “conspiracy” and it relates to agreements to violate laws. So, learn the laws that the special counsel was investigating and something about what constitutes a proper investigation into a conspiracy. Also become familiar with the difference between the investigational phase of a case and the prosecution phase of a case. Until you have some kind of foundation to build on, you are going to keep mixing up different issues into a knot no one can entangle.
In the meantime, if you are generally concerned with political misuse of the DOJ, you need to go back at least to the efforts during the G W Bush administration to turn the DOJ into an arm of the Republican election apparatus. It’s an underprepared scandal in terms of the effect on government.
Finally, if you want to see an actual political abuse of a special prosecutor’s office, read up on the investigation of the Clinton campaign and Bill Barr flying around the world in a desperate effort to find some evidence that the Clinton campaign and Ukrainians had somehow hoodwinked the world into believing that Russia was interfering with the 2016 election.
We should always be vigilant in keeping political corruption out of the DOJ. But you are so blinded by your hatred by one political party that all you are likely to do is make whatever problems that exist worse.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
