It's ok to be angry about capitalism

[Silvanus]

Former members of the CIA and FBI acting as private citizens...

Ha, sure. Hunt went to work for a CIA front company immediately after his 'retirement'. Liddy worked at the Executive Office after the FBI and was there just before reassignment to the Plumbers. The operation was plotted with the Attorney General and WH Counsel. If your issue is the weaponisation of official agency personnel, then Watergate still reeks to high heaven.

But even if a distinction without a difference, that's the point: why was Nixon crucified and Johnson venerated? It's not that Nixon was more criminal or more corrupt, so what separates those outcomes that way?

Nixon was found out, and then lied and bribed and destroyed evidence. Johnson's spying campaign didn't come to light until later.

 

[Hades]

I'm aware of various scandals LBJ was involved in.

I cannot recall him being credibly connected to the use of campaign funds to hire burglars, plant listening devices on opponents, and then destroy the evidence.

The unfunny thing is that all of Nixon's crimes are almost cute these days after Americans decided they were fine with their presidents doing much, much worse.

 

[Agema]

Nixon was found out, and then lied and bribed and destroyed evidence. Johnson's spying campaign didn't come to light until later.

Also, whilst it seems almost certain that Johnson used information stolen from Goldwater's campaign, there's no compelling evidence he ordered or oversaw the spying. If this were Trump, Tstorm would be exonerating him with precisely that argument. Indeed, Tstorm has exonerated Trump when there is even stronger evidence he was intimately involved in unethical conduct.

 

[tstorm823]

Nixon was found out, and then lied and bribed and destroyed evidence. Johnson's spying campaign didn't come to light until later.

Yes, exactly. At some point, you might wonder why one of these was found out and exploded into a national scandal, while federal employees from multiple intelligence agencies participated in the other and nobody said a word publicly. Mind you, it all came to light publicly at exactly the same time as Watergate, within a decade of it happening, and there still wasn't an enormous backlash about it.

Also, whilst it seems almost certain that Johnson used information stolen from Goldwater's campaign, there's no compelling evidence he ordered or oversaw the spying. If this were Trump, Tstorm would be exonerating him with precisely that argument. Indeed, Tstorm has exonerated Trump when there is even stronger evidence he was intimately involved in unethical conduct.

The guy who orchestrated the spying, and later Watergate, said Johnson told him to.

It really is amazing that you can't see the differences. With the allegations of Johnson spying on Goldwater, there are CIA memos from the time documenting it happening, and the testimony of the perpetrator claiming Johnson requested it. With, say, the allegations that Trump was demanding Ukraine investigate Biden in exchange for military aid, there not only isn't documentation of such an order, there are private message logs among the people who were alleged to have perpetrated it expressing surprise and disdain in response to the news reports about what they were alleged to do. One of these things is a lot more compelling than the other, it isn't the stuff about Trump, you just hate Donald Trump.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The unfunny thing is that all of Nixon's crimes are almost cute these days after Americans decided they were fine with their presidents doing much, much worse.

I know, right? IIRC, people were making jokes about that before Trump, but once attempting a fascist coup is ok, you're not left with that much.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, exactly. At some point, you might wonder why one of these was found out and exploded into a national scandal, while federal employees from multiple intelligence agencies participated in the other and nobody said a word publicly.

Employees from multuple intelligence agencies participated in both. The AG and WH Counsel also participated in Watergate, making its institutional involvement greater if anything.

Mind you, it all came to light publicly at exactly the same time as Watergate, within a decade of it happening, and there still wasn't an enormous backlash about it.

Because Nixon was currently president, and caught dead to rights, and attempted a further criminal coverup. LBJ was not and did not.

The guy who orchestrated the spying, and later Watergate, said Johnson told him to.

Hmm. And indicted perpetrators under the Trump admin have pointed to him, and to Giuliani etc, and you have deflected by arguing the actions of someone's employees-- even in that person's direct service-- cannot be held against the boss. You have no consistency to any of this.

 

[Agema]

The guy who orchestrated the spying, and later Watergate, said Johnson told him to.

You mean the disgaced ex-CIA operative who was a perpetrator working for the Republicans in the Watergate scandal?

Hm, I wonder what you'd say about his credibility if he were accusing Republicans?

Just a reminder here about how free you are at assaulting the credibility of people who make accusations against Republicans, whether it's women who accuse Trump of sexual assault, Trump associates who provide evidence supporting a quid pro quo, etc., Adam Schiff, or even just random people you immediately declare to be liars because they said something inconvenient.

It really is amazing that you can't see the differences.

I totally can see the differences - in the standards of credibility you afford people and evidence depending on who is accused. You're the one with the inconsistency here.

If you want to admit that the evidence heavily supports Trump leveraging his political power for personal benefit in Ukraine, I will very happily accept your claim that the evidence suggests Johnson used the intelligence services to spy on Goldwater. Otherwise, I'm going to call you out for double standards.

 

[Gergar12]

Secret Documents Show Pepsi and Walmart Colluded to Raise Food Prices Across the Economy

The Trump FTC tried to hide a complaint showing Pepsi forced shoppers to pay higher prices everywhere but Walmart. But now it's unsealed. And the politics of affordability are explosive.

www.thebignewsletter.com

tl;dr:

Pepsi and Walmart have a scam going whereby Pepsi ensure Walmart have the lowest prices and Walmart prioritise Pepsi products' visibility in-store. Except this actually causes Americans to pay more for their sugary drinks, because Pepsi makes all other vendors raise their prices for Pepsi products. It also hurts smaller retailers, who can't compete with Walmart. This went to the Biden FTC towards its end of term, but once the Trump FTC took over, they buried it. Just they didn't bury it very well, and now it's all come out.

Capitalism, eh?

Let's be real, no one, including people who drink sugary drinks, should be drinking Coke. Drink a craft soda if you want to drink soda. Too many preservatives and dyes in it, RFK here is right, he's just an empathyless asshole about it, and has little to no credibility due to his stance on vaccines and masks.

 

[Agema]

Let's be real, no one, including people who drink sugary drinks, should be drinking Coke. Drink a craft soda if you want to drink soda.

Christ no. If you want to eat and drink trashy stuff, eat and drink actual, trashy stuff. There's something weirdly perverse about consuming an expensive, fancy version of trash when you could just have the real thing.

 

[tstorm823]

Hmm. And indicted perpetrators under the Trump admin have pointed to him, and to Giuliani etc, and you have deflected by arguing the actions of someone's employees-- even in that person's direct service-- cannot be held against the boss. You have no consistency to any of this.

When did I ever say that?

Hm, I wonder what you'd say about his credibility if he were accusing Republicans?

The same thing. If a crime is committed to benefit Republicans, the Republicans accept the benefit, hide the crime, and the perpetrator said the Republicans had them do it, it's gotta be the default to imagine them guilty.

You imagine Trump guilty in cases where people are saying he wasn't involved and/or it is unclear a crime was even committed.

Just a reminder here about how free you are at assaulting the credibility of people who make accusations against Republicans, whether it's women who accuse Trump of sexual assault...

I only woman I've doubted is the one who said she went with him voluntarily into a changing room, then a literal SVU episode plot happened, then called rape sexy on tv. You'd be an idiot to believe that happened.

If you want to admit that the evidence heavily supports Trump leveraging his political power for personal benefit in Ukraine, I will very happily accept your claim that the evidence suggests Johnson used the intelligence services to spy on Goldwater. Otherwise, I'm going to call you out for double standards.

I wouldn't phrase it exactly that way, and you definitely believe complete nonsense about what power he was using to what benefit, but yes, Trump leveraged his political power to try to have Hunter Biden investigated in Ukraine.

 

[Gergar12]

Christ no. If you want to eat and drink trashy stuff, eat and drink actual, trashy stuff. There's something weirdly perverse about consuming an expensive, fancy version of trash when you could just have the real thing.

I could get Michigan root beer for 12 dollars at Costco for 24 bottles. Also, if you consume an expensive version of trash, you generally do it for taste and fancy and expensive tastes better and is made with better ingredients.

 

[Silvanus]

When did I ever say that?

From about here onwards you argued that Trump being Giuliani's employer, and Giuliani doing something on Trump's behalf while employed by him, did not constitute even circumstantial evidence of Trump knowing the thing was being done.

 

[tstorm823]

From about here onwards you argued that Trump being Giuliani's employer, and Giuliani doing something on Trump's behalf while employed by him, did not constitute even circumstantial evidence of Trump knowing the thing was being done.

Giuliani was acting on the behalf of a different employer, one who actually paid him. There is concrete written evidence of that. When did I even imply Trump didn't know what was being done? Your standards are fluctuating wildly, we went from "in his direct service" to "didn't know about it".

 

[Silvanus]

Giuliani was acting on the behalf of a different employer, one who actually paid him. There is concrete written evidence of that. When did I even imply Trump didn't know what was being done? Your standards are fluctuating wildly, we went from "in his direct service" to "didn't know about it".

No, we haven't. Throughout that thread you object strenuously to the suggestion Trump could be considered (even circumstantially) under suspicion for things done by his employees and to his benefit. People who talked explicitly about Trump's benefit on phone records.

This is absurd hypocrisy, if you then argue that Hunt pointing to LBJ's benefit indicates LBJ must be personally culpable.

 

[tstorm823]

Throughout that thread you object strenuously to the suggestion Trump could be considered (even circumstantially) under suspicion for things done by his employees and to his benefit.

Oh, you misunderstand: it's not that he can't be suspect based on what his employees did for his benefit, it's that there's no evidence they did what he was accused of in the first place. There's not even circumstantial evidence that Trump instigated a blackmail plot against Ukraine because there is no evidence of there being a blackmail plot at all. By all the evidence gathered, the first time the Ukrainians learned of even a delay in their promised aid was from the news reporting that they were allegedly being shaken down. If there was a recording or an email or a memo of Giuliani telling Ukrainian leadership that the US was withholding military aid until they investigated Hunter Biden, that's definitely reason to suspect Trump told him to do so, especially if Giuliani says Trump ordered him to. But that, to our knowledge, does not exist.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, you misunderstand: it's not that he can't be suspect based on what his employees did for his benefit, it's that there's no evidence they did what he was accused of in the first place. There's not even circumstantial evidence that Trump instigated a blackmail plot against Ukraine because there is no evidence of there being a blackmail plot at all.

There's no misunderstanding. I can see that where Democrats are concerned, then the word of a single disgraced Republican operative is enough to condemn them with certainty. And where Trump is concerned, it doesn't matter how high the incriminating statements and actions pile, they will always be handwaved away.

 

[tstorm823]

There's no misunderstanding. I can see that where Democrats are concerned, then the word of a single disgraced Republican operative is enough to condemn them with certainty. And where Trump is concerned, it doesn't matter how high the incriminating statements and actions pile, they will always be handwaved away.

Oh, so you have incriminating statements piled up where Trump told Ukraine that he was withholding military aid until they investigated Hunter Biden?

 

[Agema]

I could get Michigan root beer for 12 dollars at Costco for 24 bottles. Also, if you consume an expensive version of trash, you generally do it for taste and fancy and expensive tastes better and is made with better ingredients.

Trash often tastes great. They spent a lot of money making it taste great. It might be a ton of synthetic flavourings rather than "better ingredients", though. In the latter sense, someone who is perhaps very focused on natural foods may find "better ingredients" taste better.

Often, if expensive stuff tastes "better", it's potentially the simplest of psychological tricks that if you pay more for something you think it's better. Like people who pay for absurd shielded and gold-plated wires to take music from their hifi to the speakers: these cables are absolutely no better than basic ones, but people who buy them will swear against any sense the sounds is better.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, so you have incriminating statements piled up where Trump told Ukraine that he was withholding military aid until they investigated Hunter Biden?

We have incriminating statements from the perpetrators. Much like what you have for Hunt-LBJ-- for you have nothing directly from LBJ on that, but there you don't consider it necessary.

 

[tstorm823]

We have incriminating statements from the perpetrators.

You should probably let the US government know then, they never found any.