North Buffalo Posted July 18, 2018 Report Posted July 18, 2018 On 7/17/2018 at 1:08 AM, Randall Flagg said: I mentioned before that Trump's current take on the investigation is nothing short of baffling. I don't believe he is aware that the charges on Russians who did hack don't involve him, which is astonishing. I don't have the energy to rev up google and learn more about an issue that I care profoundly little about, but I've read more than once that Trump had been told over and over again to fire Comey, it was clear that he was not super competent at his job as the July-October Clinton incidents and their followups showed, and Comey's bizarre memo leak reaffirmed his own words that he wasn't investigating Trump because the memo indicated no reason to do so -and even that Trump was interested in continuing investigations concerning Russia and his campaign and election meddling (another example of Trump rhetoric splitting from Trump action) and a complete absence of "hey I feel that I am obstructed in doing my job." The memos were true fizzlers, it seems to me. The "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Quote that I think event A refers to has always mildly puzzled me, but it reads far more of Trump-speak for "hey, can you move along with this investigation and if you're not getting anywhere stop, and while you're at it please tell everyone that thinks you're investigating me that you're not investigating me" than the muahahah I will fire you if you plan to unveil my sinister deeds as gets painted. Again, if that ends up being the case, we probably should have already found out / will find out in short order, and then I can admit that I'm wrong and happily follow impeachment proceedings as I care far more about clinging to ideals than to individuals. I mean, when did that news come out? Hasn't it been over a year? Mueller may find something but it won't be this sequence of events that drives obstruction or impeachment, I don't see how, we already know it happened. But A, B, C events encapsulated by less than 20 words leaves out so much nuance that I'm not super interested in picking at it, and continue to be incredibly unconvinced. Trump-speak and Trump mannerisms are real things, and the "sketchiest" parts of all of this (I really only see one or two) are so easily explained by both that until Mueller is addressing the nation with the findings that damn Trump to impeachment, I'll doubt it's going to or should happen. Either Trump colluded and fired Comey to prevent the findings, Trump fired Comey because of well-documented troubling antics, or Trump fired Comey because he was pissed the investigation weren't 'going anywhere' while somehow pitting everyone into this idea that he was involved in the hacking while Comey knew he wasn't and refused to tell everyone. I don't see much outside of these options and I am the least convinced by the first one. The last one is eye-rollingly Trump but not collusion or obstruction of justice. Upon further reflection, I'd bet my house that this ends up being the case. It just feels right. Comey is not stupid nor incompetent. He however, in my opinion, is a bureaucratic political insider, and was trying to become a kingpin, a la Herbert Hoover. I don't believe half the stuff he shovels. He went after Obama's folks and then tried the same tactics against Trump, all the while stating he wasn't doing anything. He released those HRC documents right before the election. Comey only cares about Comey and Trump was smart to fire him, even if it made him look bad regarding the Russian investigation. You guys are confusing facts with political power struggles. I am still not sure we have heard the entire accurate story of what happened from either Trump or Comey and probably never will.
5th line wingnutt Posted July 19, 2018 Report Posted July 19, 2018 On 7/16/2018 at 8:39 PM, Randall Flagg said: I was able to sit and listen to Trump fully during dinner, and I'm actually less convinced than ever that he was colluding with the Russians. The guy still legitimately hasn't figured out that the logical conclusion of Russians hacking us, which they did, doesn't necessitate his own involvement. He hasn't reasoned his way through a two step logical process yet. There's no way he's sharp enough to have colluded IMO. I'll change my tune if the hard evidence presents itself, but it hasn't yet. Also, this is a case of Trump's rhetoric bothering me more than it ever has, but it's not as if his actual policy concerning Russia has been soft, from Ukraine to what we've done in Syria. Wake me up when he doesn't do anything when Russia, I dunno, invades Europe or something. And the "sucking up to Putin," which I want to stress, is incredibly vile, is just how he talks to prominent people. It's how he thinks he negotiates. I hate it, but it's certainly not the treason it's being called right now. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-why-trump-doesnt-admit-russian-election-interference thought this would interest you. 1
Taro T Posted July 21, 2018 Report Posted July 21, 2018 On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Sabel79 said: To the first paragraph: that was certainly the reason he gave. Even assuming that's the truth, he's pretty much admitting he, as the Director of the FBI, had no control over his subordinates in the NY field office who, and there is no other fair interpretation of their conduct, were absolutely hell-bent on taking her campaign down. Things started leaking. He had a choice, either put his foot down or do what he did. Either response would be seen as political, but I kind of doubt that he had a hard time choosing which way to go. To the second: You're probably right, but that's not really the important question. How many were dissuaded from voting altogether? Or voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson for the Lulz? The whole mess was, is and will be an ongoing disgrace, one that won't be repaired for generations, if at all. 1st off, apologies on delay for this response. Hadn't seen you quoted my post until a few days after the fact. Not sure how you're getting that the NY field office wanted to take Clinton down. (They definitely were after Weiner.) Strozk, who knew about the laptop for about a month prior to telling Comey, most certainly did not want her taken down & did pretty much all he could to make sure she didn't go down. (Yes, he wasn't in the field office, am not trying to conflate the 2.) How many people were dissuaded from voting for Clinton because of the late October public utterances of Comey? Obviously, we'll never know. But based on everything everybody already knew about her through her quarter century in the public eye, truly doubt it was many people at all. My guess is that the way the democratic nomination appeared to be rigged against Sanders cost her far more votes as many of Bernie's supporters seemed quite bitter, understandably, about that, than any votes that Comey may have cost her. Both major party candidates were extremely flawed which is a big part of why turnout overall was down.
Sabel79 Posted July 22, 2018 Report Posted July 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Taro T said: Not sure how you're getting that the NY field office wanted to take Clinton down. (They definitely were after Weiner.) Strozk, who knew about the laptop for about a month prior to telling Comey, most certainly did not want her taken down & did pretty much all he could to make sure she didn't go down. (Yes, he wasn't in the field office, am not trying to conflate the 2.) This sums it up: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/06/18/how-rogue-agents-at-the-fbi-influenced-the-election/ 1
Taro T Posted July 22, 2018 Report Posted July 22, 2018 40 minutes ago, Sabel79 said: This sums it up: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/06/18/how-rogue-agents-at-the-fbi-influenced-the-election/ My tablet's not letting me download the article. Will try to check it from my phone tomorrow.
5th line wingnutt Posted July 23, 2018 Report Posted July 23, 2018 https://lidblog.com/memes-explain-ruissiagate/ I found this amusing. YMMV.
Eleven Posted July 23, 2018 Report Posted July 23, 2018 2 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said: https://lidblog.com/memes-explain-ruissiagate/ I found this amusing. YMMV. Yes. It's all the media being mean to poor Donnie. He didn't, for example, say something incredibly stupid and treacherous in Helsinki.
LGR4GM Posted July 24, 2018 Author Report Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) Trump kissed Putin's ass in person because he was scared or manipulated and then had to back track when someone told him he was played. His rebuttal that he misspoke was one of the weakest, most insincere, b#lls##t things ever put to the American people. He didn't misspeak. He cowed to a person he looks up to. Edited July 24, 2018 by LGR4GM
Huckleberry Posted July 25, 2018 Report Posted July 25, 2018 I think with Trump, flattery will get you everywhere, putin probably just played the mans ego and he fell for it.
darksabre Posted August 16, 2018 Report Posted August 16, 2018 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/trump-military-parade-expected-to-cost-80-million-more-than-estimated.html
Eleven Posted August 16, 2018 Report Posted August 16, 2018 1 hour ago, darksabre said: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/trump-military-parade-expected-to-cost-80-million-more-than-estimated.html He's actually going through with this stupid thing?
darksabre Posted August 16, 2018 Report Posted August 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, Eleven said: He's actually going through with this stupid thing? The party of fiscal responsibility needs to keep daddy happy.
LTS Posted August 16, 2018 Report Posted August 16, 2018 There are days when I wish I could leave this country... This isn't even a rant on Agent Orange, but just a rant about the US. Why the hell do we treat the President like he's irreplaceable and then replace him every 8 years or less? Let's be honest.. we take some buttnutt and elect them to office every 4 years and grant them the power to make us look like crap in the world and potentially ruin the country. We decide 4 years later if they screwed up enough or not to re-elect them, but after 8.. they are gone. All the cost for security, etc. just to protect someone who will only be important for a maximum of 8 years. We know we are going to replace whoever we elect as President in 8 years or less... we know this and yet we act this way. Boggles the mind... truly. I'm certainly trying to be careful in my wording here because I am not advocating for harm to the President. I am just pointing out the idiocy of the situation.
Eleven Posted August 16, 2018 Report Posted August 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, LTS said: There are days when I wish I could leave this country... This isn't even a rant on Agent Orange, but just a rant about the US. Why the hell do we treat the President like he's irreplaceable and then replace him every 8 years or less? Let's be honest.. we take some buttnutt and elect them to office every 4 years and grant them the power to make us look like crap in the world and potentially ruin the country. We decide 4 years later if they screwed up enough or not to re-elect them, but after 8.. they are gone. All the cost for security, etc. just to protect someone who will only be important for a maximum of 8 years. We know we are going to replace whoever we elect as President in 8 years or less... we know this and yet we act this way. Boggles the mind... truly. I'm certainly trying to be careful in my wording here because I am not advocating for harm to the President. I am just pointing out the idiocy of the situation. There are arguments for and against term limits, but one of the strong arguments for is that it limits the ability of any one person--or indeed the office itself--to gain too much power. Personally, I'm a term limit fan. I'd love to see them for representatives and senators, too. It's absolutely crazy that Nancy Pelosi has been a congresswoman for sixteen terms (31 years and counting) or that Strom Thurmond was a senator for 47 years.
darksabre Posted August 16, 2018 Report Posted August 16, 2018 22 minutes ago, Eleven said: There are arguments for and against term limits, but one of the strong arguments for is that it limits the ability of any one person--or indeed the office itself--to gain too much power. Personally, I'm a term limit fan. I'd love to see them for representatives and senators, too. It's absolutely crazy that Nancy Pelosi has been a congresswoman for sixteen terms (31 years and counting) or that Strom Thurmond was a senator for 47 years. I wonder about the Presidential term limit thing. I've always found it kind of silly that the American people couldn't keep electing someone they liked. I think, organically, it would be rare to have a 3 term President anyway. How many Presidents since FDR might realistically have been elected to a 3rd term? And would that re-election have been a problem?
Eleven Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 4 hours ago, darksabre said: I wonder about the Presidential term limit thing. I've always found it kind of silly that the American people couldn't keep electing someone they liked. I think, organically, it would be rare to have a 3 term President anyway. How many Presidents since FDR might realistically have been elected to a 3rd term? And would that re-election have been a problem? Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton, certainly could have been reelected. W and Obama, no. I think those are the only choices, right? Would another four years of Reaganomics been good for the country? NFW. The economy collapsed under his weight just after GHWB took office. (All credit to RWR for winning the Cold War, though.) As for Eisenhower and Clinton, well, frankly, I do think the country would have done well under a third term from either. Their successors both kind of sucked, and both of them knew how to work both sides of the aisle.
darksabre Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, Eleven said: Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton, certainly could have been reelected. W and Obama, no. I think those are the only choices, right? Would another four years of Reaganomics been good for the country? NFW. The economy collapsed under his weight just after GHWB took office. (All credit to RWR for winning the Cold War, though.) As for Eisenhower and Clinton, well, frankly, I do think the country would have done well under a third term from either. Their successors both kind of sucked, and both of them knew how to work both sides of the aisle. Wrt Reagan, I don't think he would have run. He was already in decline mentally at the end of his second term. I think his family would have but a stop to any plans of that nature in order to protect him. I agree on Eisenhower and Clinton.
Eleven Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 14 minutes ago, darksabre said: Wrt Reagan, I don't think he would have run. He was already in decline mentally at the end of his second term. I think his family would have but a stop to any plans of that nature in order to protect him. I agree on Eisenhower and Clinton. Nancy was a nutter with no sway over him and the machine behind him--and make no mistake, it was such a machine that I don't think Reagan actually was the President--would have propped him up like Weekend at Bernies XXXVI. 1
Eleven Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, darksabre said: The party of fiscal responsibility needs to keep daddy happy. The Pentagon has said no. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/military-parade-postponed/index.html My favorite quote: An administration official told CNN the $92 million figure for the US military parade, which was first reported by CNBC, was a planning estimate for an event that would meet President Donald Trump's intent. About half that amount would have been for non-military costs like security. What security? It's the freaking military. There are guns and tanks and planes and whatever. What more security is needed? Edited August 17, 2018 by Eleven
darksabre Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, Eleven said: The Pentagon has said no. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/military-parade-postponed/index.html My favorite quote: An administration official told CNN the $92 million figure for the US military parade, which was first reported by CNBC, was a planning estimate for an event that would meet President Donald Trump's intent. About half that amount would have been for non-military costs like security. What security? It's the freaking military. There are guns and tanks and planes and whatever. What more security is needed? Gotta protect the tanks from protestors.
SwampD Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 Trump is the most dangerous president in my lifetime. That press conference with Larry Kudlow today was as close to a TASS-like fake news press conference as we've ever seen. Just dangerous. With that said, I don't hate Trump. He is what he is, and if people don't realize it, then we get what we deserve as a country. And if the end result is to wake up the grown ups to realize the power they have and actually do something with it, then great.
Eleven Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 42 minutes ago, SwampD said: Trump is the most dangerous president in my lifetime. That press conference with Larry Kudlow today was as close to a TASS-like fake news press conference as we've ever seen. Just dangerous. With that said, I don't hate Trump. He is what he is, and if people don't realize it, then we get what we deserve as a country. And if the end result is to wake up the grown ups to realize the power they have and actually do something with it, then great. He's the most dangerous president in American history. And that includes vermin like Fillmore and Harding. I don't hate anyone. I pray for him to reform himself and to do well by our country. I haven't much hope, but I do pray. Also--nice show today! I watched for the first time in a while. 1 hour ago, darksabre said: Gotta protect the tanks from protestors. Ah yes. Like Tiananmen.
LTS Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 21 hours ago, Eleven said: There are arguments for and against term limits, but one of the strong arguments for is that it limits the ability of any one person--or indeed the office itself--to gain too much power. Personally, I'm a term limit fan. I'd love to see them for representatives and senators, too. It's absolutely crazy that Nancy Pelosi has been a congresswoman for sixteen terms (31 years and counting) or that Strom Thurmond was a senator for 47 years. It's not so much about the term limit as it is that the term limit exists so we recognize that the person isn't that important (or shouldn't be that important for too long) but then we protect them like they cannot be touched. The concept of a term limit only makes sense when you accept that the people who are being ruled are too ignorant to use the already established mechanisms to limit the terms of politicians themselves. Implementing term limits is the ultimate "not my responsibility" move. Moreover, if we actually had politicians who were GOOD at what they do and beneficial it would cause change when change should not occur. The only RIGHT answer is for people to educate themselves and become more intelligent on the people they are electing to lead their governments.
Eleven Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, LTS said: It's not so much about the term limit as it is that the term limit exists so we recognize that the person isn't that important (or shouldn't be that important for too long) but then we protect them like they cannot be touched. The concept of a term limit only makes sense when you accept that the people who are being ruled are too ignorant to use the already established mechanisms to limit the terms of politicians themselves. Implementing term limits is the ultimate "not my responsibility" move. Moreover, if we actually had politicians who were GOOD at what they do and beneficial it would cause change when change should not occur. The only RIGHT answer is for people to educate themselves and become more intelligent on the people they are electing to lead their governments. How do you mean "protect them like they cannot be touched"? I sense that you don't mean physical harm but I'm not getting what you do mean.
LTS Posted August 17, 2018 Report Posted August 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Eleven said: How do you mean "protect them like they cannot be touched"? I sense that you don't mean physical harm but I'm not getting what you do mean. I do mean physical harm. That's my entire point about security. How much money is spent on security for a person who will have a job at most 8 years? I understand that while in office the position has power but we know that person isn't so amazing that we aren't willing to get rid of them in 8 years or less. If the person had some unique abilities that needed to be protected, that would be one thing. There's nothing unique about a president. Just a rant of mine... I understand that no security or less security might invite additional attempts at violence. It could lead to constant turnover as people inflicted harm upon those in that position. I get all of that... I dunno. They are just people.
Recommended Posts