←back to thread

Waltz's team set up at least 20 Signal group chats for crises across the world

(www.politico.com)
295 points mdhb | 7 comments | 02 Apr 25 19:09 UTC | HN request time: 1.219s | source | bottom
Show context
lenerdenator ◴[02 Apr 25 20:28 UTC] No.43561132[source]▶
Any time you read anything having to do with this administration, remember:

The behavior will continue until an effective negative stimulus is given.

Then immediately stop reading. The details don't matter at this point.

replies(6): >>43561154 #>>43561678 #>>43562099 #>>43562191 #>>43562255 #>>43562364 #
alaxhn ◴[02 Apr 25 21:53 UTC] No.43562099[source]▶
Does this sentiment extend more broadly than a single administration? Can we broadly expect many potentially problematic behaviors to continue until an effective negative stimulus is given?

It's interesting to me why this perspective is popular when applied a certain administration but not popular when applied to other things such as

* Poverty \ * Drug Addiction \ * Homelessness \ * Obesity \ * Undocumented Border Crossings

replies(1): >>43562596 #
kelipso ◴[02 Apr 25 22:41 UTC] No.43562596[source]▶
This is what I find so funny about the oh so serious protests about the current administration that people make in these comments. When other administrations do the same thing, it's one excuse after another, or just silence. These people are just mindlessly posting based on political memes, they're simply not serious.
replies(1): >>43563190 #
sorcerer-mar ◴[02 Apr 25 23:50 UTC] No.43563190[source]▶
Which other administration filed executive orders banning specific law firms from federal buildings and their customers from winning federal contracts because the law firm once employed a lawyer who once investigated or sued that administration?

I’ll wait.

replies(1): >>43563456 #
1. kelipso ◴[03 Apr 25 00:38 UTC] No.43563456[source]▶
Biden went after Trump using the judicial system and I am certain you were not complaining about that. I doubt you were even aware of it. I guess you were waiting for another administration so you can start protesting again.
replies(2): >>43563540 #>>43563842 #
2. lenerdenator ◴[03 Apr 25 00:54 UTC] No.43563540[source]▶
You mean they convinced a grand jury to charge him, and then convinced a jury of his peers to convict him of 34 felony counts, all while he had legal representation that most of us could only dream of?
3. sorcerer-mar ◴[03 Apr 25 01:52 UTC] No.43563842[source]▶
I guess all you'd need is evidence.

Biden being the President and the DOJ charging Trump does not imply "Biden went after Trump."

There's actually no evidence Biden played any role in DOJ's decision to prosecute either for the stolen classified documents or for the election fraud. The brazen criminality was sufficient for an independent DOJ to take up the matter.

inb4 "DOJ didn't make that decision independently" which is another way of saying "I'm willing to believe things without evidence."

replies(1): >>43564032 #
4. kelipso ◴[03 Apr 25 02:23 UTC] No.43564032[source]▶
You can be patient and wait gently for the former Biden administration to admit what they did. I am sure you will wait a long time but who cares.

Meanwhile people who matter and people who vote can use their brains to deduce the truth that it was a politically motivated attack that made use of the judicial system.

For one reason or another, it seems that humans are able to use deductions to arrive at conclusions without having it be spoonfed to them. The people who need to be spoonfed can sit in their highchairs and be irrelevant I guess.

replies(1): >>43564233 #
5. sorcerer-mar ◴[03 Apr 25 03:03 UTC] No.43564233{3}[source]▶
You're drawing a false dichotomy between believing things with no evidence (what you dishonestly call "deduction") and simply waiting for the accused to produce evidence.

I know this is mighty convenient framing to justify the conclusion you've already reached, but back here in reality there's actually no shortage of people with access to all sorts of records who are extremely motivated to find and publish such evidence. They haven't yet and they almost certainly never will.

P.S. To deduce that Biden ordered these investigations, you'd have to disprove alternative explanations including "the defendant himself and his own legal team publicly provided ample evidence of his criminality to justify investigation."

You're making shit up, not deducing, lol.

replies(1): >>43569263 #
6. kelipso ◴[03 Apr 25 13:24 UTC] No.43569263{4}[source]▶
Well, as I said, you can wait.
replies(1): >>43569438 #
7. sorcerer-mar ◴[03 Apr 25 13:38 UTC] No.43569438{5}[source]▶
I'm not waiting. I'm actively looking for evidence. I've looked for it, I've asked for it, the problem is only that neither you nor anyone else have any.

So it's actually like I said: You're willing to believe things without evidence.

You can take pride in that if you want, but don't call it deduction.