Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#111

Post by chowchowchow »

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #107
chowchowchow wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are the Clintons off-limits Umm, no. Not off limits. But also not relevant, for the same reason I didn't bring up George W. Bush and his administration. Your pivoting of this discussion into one of my personal opinions about the Clintons is super revealing. I truly don't know what it has to do with anything, but it appears you're trying to catch me personally in some kind of contradiction? Even if I were holding co…

An impartial investigation isn't unreasonable. Having an investigation conducted by someone (Robert Mueller) with ties to the Clintons (via James Comey) is. Keep in mind that almost the entirety of the media and the political establishment in the United States opposes President Trump. If they had anything substantive on him, don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year…

> don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year

I don't know. I'm not a federal investigator, I don't really know how long these things take or what "should" have leaked by now if there was something serious enough afoot for you to consider it substantive.

It took like 2 years or something for impeachment to begin after the watergate break in was first reported as a spying effort and Nixon was still fully denying it a year later.

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#112

Post by infinite8s »

carry_bit wrote: post #74
klank wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nations are a completely artificial social construct But if nations aren't simply social constructs, what are they? Is it the word "artificial" that is so surprising? Maybe I have more fringe beliefs than I thought I did.

Nations are the extended family writ large. They are no more social constructs than the family is a social construct. You might be confusing 'nation' with 'nation-state'; not all states are nation-states.

There is a major difference - you likely don't share blood relations with every member of a nation. So they aren't quite like a giant extended family.

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#113

Post by juliangoldsmith »

chowchowchow wrote: post #111
juliangoldsmith wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An impartial investigation isn't unreasonable. Having an investigation conducted by someone (Robert Mueller) with ties to the Clintons (via James Comey) is. Keep in mind that almost the entirety of the media and the political establishment in the United States opposes President Trump. If they had anything substantive on him, don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year…

> don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year I don't know. I'm not a federal investigator, I don't really know how long these things take or what "should" have leaked by now if there was something serious enough afoot for you to consider it substantive. It took like 2 years or something for impeachment to begin after the watergate break in was first reported as a spy…

That's how long it took for impeachment to begin. The actual break-in was reported on NBC by Robert Endicott on June 19th, 1972, two days after the crime was committed.

Up to this point, the news media hasn't seen any actual evidence of a collusion. To quote Adam Entous, who writes on national security for the Washington Post, "Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far." [0]

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIm9zNItYq8

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#114

Post by chowchowchow »

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #113
chowchowchow wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year I don't know. I'm not a federal investigator, I don't really know how long these things take or what "should" have leaked by now if there was something serious enough afoot for you to consider it substantive. It took like 2 years or something for impeachment to begin after the watergate break in was first reported as a spy…

That's how long it took for impeachment to begin. The actual break-in was reported on NBC by Robert Endicott on June 19th, 1972, two days after the crime was committed. Up to this point, the news media hasn't seen any actual evidence of a collusion. To quote Adam Entous, who writes on national security for the Washington Post, "Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence…

wait wait, you are totally crossing wires.

In the watergate analogy "collusion" would be Nixon's direct complicity in the Watergate break in. Nixon was denying all involvement one year after the crime was reported. The crime was the break in then, and now it's Russian election meddling via social media and probably hacking the DNC (I'm sure you disagree with this).

So we're in the period after the crime was revealed, before the link to the sitting President was found, if we are just comparing the two timelines.

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#115

Post by Buttes »

Helloworldboy wrote: post #69
Buttes wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He seems to have been disavowing racists since the start Pandering to racists since the start: * Initial refusal to rebuke David Duke. * "Rapists" remark. * Violence on "both sides". * Not mentioning the Jews on Holocaust Remembrance day. * No traditional White House Ramadan celebration. * Attacking the hispanic judge in the Trump U case because of their race. * Calling for and attempting to implement a "Muslim Ban…

You just listed a bunch of events with zero context that require initial bias to dry racism over. This "wink and nod" idea seems pretty tin-foil hat to me

You're hopeless, this is not subtle stuff, you're being deliberately obtuse, or you're just plain stupid.

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#116

Post by juliangoldsmith »

chowchowchow wrote: post #114
juliangoldsmith wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how long it took for impeachment to begin. The actual break-in was reported on NBC by Robert Endicott on June 19th, 1972, two days after the crime was committed. Up to this point, the news media hasn't seen any actual evidence of a collusion. To quote Adam Entous, who writes on national security for the Washington Post, "Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence…

wait wait, you are totally crossing wires. In the watergate analogy "collusion" would be Nixon's direct complicity in the Watergate break in. Nixon was denying all involvement one year after the crime was reported. The crime was the break in then, and now it's Russian election meddling via social media and probably hacking the DNC (I'm sure you disagree with this). So we're in the period after the crime was revealed,…

Nixon (most likely) wasn't complicit in the break-in, he covered it up after he learned of it.

In any case, the alleged collusion isn't Watergate. The coziness of the investigators with President Trump's political enemies and the amount of false information that the media has reported should be cause to question the purpose of the investigation.

As far as the DNC "hack", the evidence the Russia did it was a hasty, blatant forgery [0]. Julian Assange and Wikileaks have done literally everything short of outright claiming that Seth Rich was their source [1][2].

EDIT: The comment chain has gotten too long for replies, so I'll have to reply here.

@dragonwriter: The Robert Mueller, the special investigator, has ties to James Comey [3]. James Comey has been part of three investigations on the Clintons (the Whitewater scandal, the Marc Rich pardon, and the email server); in two of those, he personally was responsible for dropping the charges, both times with little explanation. I'd consider that to be suspicious at best. The fact that Mueller hasn't recused himself, as a friend of one of the witnesses (Comey) in the investigation, is good reason to question the validity of the investigation.

I'll concede that the point about the media wasn't a good one. A better one would have been that the Russia investigation is based on the Guccifer 2.0 forgery and a fabricated dossier by Fusion GPS. The Fusion GPS dossier was paid for first by Paul Singer, an anti-Trump conservative, and later by Marc Elias, an attorney for the Clinton campaign.

[0]: http://g-2.space

[1]: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763041804652539904

[2]: https://youtu.be/Kp7FkLBRpKg?t=23s

[3]: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/james-comey-robert-mu...

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#117

Post by dragonwriter »

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #116
chowchowchow wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait wait, you are totally crossing wires. In the watergate analogy "collusion" would be Nixon's direct complicity in the Watergate break in. Nixon was denying all involvement one year after the crime was reported. The crime was the break in then, and now it's Russian election meddling via social media and probably hacking the DNC (I'm sure you disagree with this). So we're in the period after the crime was revealed,…

Nixon (most likely) wasn't complicit in the break-in, he covered it up after he learned of it. In any case, the alleged collusion isn't Watergate. The coziness of the investigators with President Trump's political enemies and the amount of false information that the media has reported should be cause to question the purpose of the investigation. As far as the DNC "hack", the evidence the Russia did it was a hasty, bl…

> In any case, the alleged collusion isn't Watergate.

This is true to the extent that Watergate did not involve collision with a foreign power engaging in a policy aimed to weaken the U.S. The alleged collision is far, far worse than Watergate.

> The coziness of the investigators with President Trump's political enemies and the number of false information that the media has reported should be cause to question the purpose of the investigation.

That's a bizarre and nonspecific claim. What coziness? Which of the investigators? What false information, and how do false media reports say anything about the purpose of the investigation rather than the sloppiness of the media, in any case?

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#118

Post by chowchowchow »

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #116
chowchowchow wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait wait, you are totally crossing wires. In the watergate analogy "collusion" would be Nixon's direct complicity in the Watergate break in. Nixon was denying all involvement one year after the crime was reported. The crime was the break in then, and now it's Russian election meddling via social media and probably hacking the DNC (I'm sure you disagree with this). So we're in the period after the crime was revealed,…

Nixon (most likely) wasn't complicit in the break-in, he covered it up after he learned of it. In any case, the alleged collusion isn't Watergate. The coziness of the investigators with President Trump's political enemies and the amount of false information that the media has reported should be cause to question the purpose of the investigation. As far as the DNC "hack", the evidence the Russia did it was a hasty, bl…

> Nixon (most likely) wasn't complicit in the break-in, he covered it up after he learned of it.

That's quite a thin distinction and not at all exculpatory of him anyway. So if Donald Trump learned about activities by his campaign manager, son, and son in law after the fact, and attempted to cover them up, would you agree with the Watergate comparison?

The investigation is also not founded on the dossier. That is false. Did you miss how trump Jr, Flynn, etc all retweeted confirmed Russian propaganda accounts? And trump himself echoed many positions that probably came to him in a similar way (he probably didn't specifically know that his sources were Russian peppaganda originally, I'll give you that. He doesn't know much). I think it may turn out that the whole gang is just extremely cynical and stupid, but to pretend Russian efforts never overlapped with the Trump campaign is deep denial and total alternative reality.

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#119

Post by LyndsySimon »

mikeash wrote: post #83
confuseddesi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it is the American right-wing moving further right, but I am more inclined to believe the American left is moving farther left: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-ame... Take for example this speech by Bill Clinton in 1995: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4654597/bill-clinton-illegal-... : "That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record…

In the 90s, the Democrats were trying to enact a single-payer health care system, and the Republican response to it was similar to what we now know as the ACA. Now, the Democrats fight for the Republican plan and the Republicans want to do away with it altogether. Democrats in the late 60s wanted a national gun registry and ban handguns for anyone who can't demonstrate a need, with household self-protection not consi…

> Republicans only wanted to ban things like assault weapons, ownership by felons, and carrying loaded weapons in public.

Citation needed.

Re: Elite colleges are making it easy for conservatives to dislike them

#120

Post by juliangoldsmith »

chowchowchow wrote: post #118
juliangoldsmith wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nixon (most likely) wasn't complicit in the break-in, he covered it up after he learned of it. In any case, the alleged collusion isn't Watergate. The coziness of the investigators with President Trump's political enemies and the amount of false information that the media has reported should be cause to question the purpose of the investigation. As far as the DNC "hack", the evidence the Russia did it was a hasty, bl…

> Nixon (most likely) wasn't complicit in the break-in, he covered it up after he learned of it. That's quite a thin distinction and not at all exculpatory of him anyway. So if Donald Trump learned about activities by his campaign manager, son, and son in law after the fact, and attempted to cover them up, would you agree with the Watergate comparison? The investigation is also not founded on the dossier. That is fal…

>Did you miss how trump Jr, Flynn, etc all retweeted confirmed Russian propaganda accounts? And trump himself echoed many positions that probably came to him in a similar way (he probably didn't specifically know that his sources were Russian peppaganda originally, I'll give you that. He doesn't know much)

Do you have a source on any of that? I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe that.

Post reply on HN