Trump Thread

[HopAlongBunny]

I think Mueller just started what will be a long road.
The first thing to establish is that interference did occur; done.
Teasing out the threads from that fact will likely be like a dripping faucet.
Short-term it gives Mueller cover; dismissal just hits so many buttons now that its a national security issue.

[HopAlongBunny]

Threads? We got threads all over!
Rick Gates flipping on Manafort? Looks like it.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/rick-gates-will-plead-guilty-within-days-and-testify-against-manafort.html

Political version of water torture? (drip-drip-drip)
Maybe!:whip:

[Montmorency]

I skimmed through the indictment, didn't read it thoroughly, but it could be summed up with "much ado about nothing".

There were some people who used faked and/or stolen identities to set up pages on social media. Russian government is not explicitly mentioned. No amounts of money were mentioned, except in one case - 1.25 million $ monthly, but that was not the amount spent but rather monthly budget of an organization that operates in many countries of the world. Even if the entire budget was spent on influencing American elections for two years without spending anything elsewhere and not paying a cent for staff and infrastructure, it's not even 30 million. Double or triple or quadruple that and it is still a drop in the ocean compared to the money spent on the elections by just two candidates.

And, still, even journalists can't draw conclusions and are still sticking with the story "Russia supported Trump" even when the indictment says that the same people who tried to rally support for Trump, also helped promote "not my president" when he won. The goal was never supporting Trump, but promoting political instability. Only now are some picking up on that. The problem is, the mass hysteria created about Russian support for Trump is now proving detrimental to serious discourse on the issue.

New York Times today had an editorial mentioning US meddling in the elections over the world. They had experts counting both overt and covert meddling in various elections since the WW2. They came up with 81 for USA and 39 for USSR/Russia, and at least in my humble opinion, those are quite conservative figures. This is nothing new, this is same old, same old, just digital instead of analog.

When you have mainstream media that's more interested in click bait qualities of an article rather than its substance, you're gonna get stories like this.

We've been over this.

1. "Meddling" is not new. This mode of meddling is new, and carries new implications for normal political process.
2.(Fairly productive) Russian attempts to install Russia-friendly right-wing governments throughout the world is alarming in itself, assuming you don't hate America/Western Europe more than anything.
3. US misconduct excuses nothing of Russian misconduct, without reflexively excusing the US misconduct in turn and leaving one flapping in the breeze.
4. We know Russia supported Trump - they supported him for the purpose of creating political instability. Further muddying the waters after the election (continuous since that time, up to now), especially after Trump has his foreign policy maneuvering checked by Congress and media, is a logical and consistent step.
5. Targeted efforts outside legal constraint may be more effective than across-the-board spending in a heavily-monitored organization. As far as full-time employees, the indictment refers to "hundreds" at the IRA while the Clinton campaign (http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintonorggen.html) maintained 3900-4200 (~900 + ~3000) and the Trump campaign (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ground-game-democrats-started-fall-5-1-paid-staff-advantage-n661656) ~900.
6. This story does not relate to the other elements of the Russian effort to undermine the election, and it's rather inelegant to deride them individually as unimpressive if you know the totality is greater.
7. To repeat, we are still under attack, and there is nothing on the public agenda to counter ongoing Russian efforts. It might be easier to acknowledge nonchalance if the government had already taken effective action against the ratf***ing.


If ultimately a concrete and knowing quid-pro-quo is revealed and Trump judged guilty of various crimes, I hope you wouldn't feel the need to point out that it's either not that a big deal since there hadn't (hopefully) been an explicit Trumpian coup attempt, a civil war, or thousands of political dissidents disappeared, or else that we deserve it all for having similarly compromised the leadership of other countries.

[CrossLOPER]

This is nothing new, this is same old, same old, just digital instead of analog.
As mentioned before, it's the mode through which this is being done, rather than whether it's been done before. What we are seeing is that mass manipulation can not only be spread easily and cheaply through social media without physical intrusion, but also automated.

[HopAlongBunny]

What we are seeing is that mass manipulation can not only be spread easily and cheaply through social media without physical intrusion, but also automated.

Is this how the robots take over?

[Sarmatian]

We've been over this.

1. "Meddling" is not new. This mode of meddling is new, and carries new implications for normal political process.
2.(Fairly productive) Russian attempts to install Russia-friendly right-wing governments throughout the world is alarming in itself, assuming you don't hate America/Western Europe more than anything.
3. US misconduct excuses nothing of Russian misconduct, without reflexively excusing the US misconduct in turn and leaving one flapping in the breeze.
4. We know Russia supported Trump - they supported him for the purpose of creating political instability. Further muddying the waters after the election (continuous since that time, up to now), especially after Trump has his foreign policy maneuvering checked by Congress and media, is a logical and consistent step.
5. Targeted efforts outside legal constraint may be more effective than across-the-board spending in a heavily-monitored organization. As far as full-time employees, the indictment refers to "hundreds" at the IRA while the Clinton campaign (http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintonorggen.html) maintained 3900-4200 (~900 + ~3000) and the Trump campaign (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ground-game-democrats-started-fall-5-1-paid-staff-advantage-n661656) ~900.
6. This story does not relate to the other elements of the Russian effort to undermine the election, and it's rather inelegant to deride them individually as unimpressive if you know the totality is greater.
7. To repeat, we are still under attack, and there is nothing on the public agenda to counter ongoing Russian efforts. It might be easier to acknowledge nonchalance if the government had already taken effective action against the ratf***ing.


If ultimately a concrete and knowing quid-pro-quo is revealed and Trump judged guilty of various crimes, I hope you wouldn't feel the need to point out that it's either not that a big deal since there hadn't (hopefully) been an explicit Trumpian coup attempt, a civil war, or thousands of political dissidents disappeared, or else that we deserve it all for having similarly compromised the leadership of other countries.

We have, but obviously we haven't reached a common conclusion.

1) Of course the mode is new, but propaganda is propaganda. From town criers to church sermons, to newspapers, then radio and television, then internet and social mode. There's going to be a new mode in 10 years.

2) The point is more about helping "Russian friendly" than "right wing". Again, it is a two way street. USA efforts have been to create a global economic community that will be dominated by US and exclude and isolate Russia and China. I consider that approach dangerous and not sustainable long term. At best you'll have those two countries imploding and creating instability in the entire world and at worst a war.

3) It kind of does, for two reasons. First, there's no impartial authority to which Russia (or any other nation) can bring this issue, so they can only decide whether to take it or fight back in the same way. Second reason - it would actually mean something if USA did stuff like that in the past but has stopped now. Of course, USA continually meddles in Russia and many other countries in the world, and it has been doing so even while Russia has been meddling in this election and will continue to do so whether Russia meddles in US internal affairs or not.

4) Yes. The point is that supporting Trump was not a goal but the means.

5) Ok.

6) Ok, so the totality is what? Russia meddled and had minor to no influence in swaying voters.

7) Really? Under attack? We're obviously too far apart to conduct a meaningful discussion on this issue.

Behind all of this, the reality is that US simply isn't ready to acknowledge the current situation in the world and adapt accordingly. It still tries to preserve to unipolar system it has grown so fond of. It doesn't want to let go of Bretton Woods system, it doesn't want to relinquish control of world's financial and political institutions and is actively trying to exclude and isolate any potential rivals for power. At the moment those are Russia and China, tomorrow it will be someone else.

It's not going to work in the long term and even the best case scenario for US would be a loss for most of the rest of the world. It can all be summed up with "there's gonna be shit in the world so we delay facing the shit in the USA". At one point USA will have to face those shits and clean them up or drown in them. The longer they wait, more shit both USA and the rest of the world will have to face.

Screw Putin, Putin is a consequence of that. Take that away and Putins around the world will find that people aren't actually so fond of them.

[CrossLOPER]

Screw Putin, Putin is a consequence of that. Take that away and Putins around the world will find that people aren't actually so fond of them.
Putin and Trump are the consequences of the same delusional nationalistic fervor being grasped at by those who have been forgotten by uncaring systems. The US system is uncaring because those who are doing well have the greatest resources to utilize the system to do even better. The Russian system is uncaring because it hasn't had a functional system since the high Middle Ages and continues to prove that even a pile of garbage can resemble civilization if you squint hard enough.

Which one is worse? Ask the ones on the bottom.

On another point - I agree that Russia has been subject to isolation, but that is mostly because it insists on living in its own reality where anything it does is justified because "everyone else is doing it" and that any dissenting opinion is the result of "foreign troublemakers". The PRC? I have no idea why China is incapable of performing far better than it does. It has the base for it, but still insists on trying to drive the economy to its own ends, and failing every time, managing to further destroy the environment and brutalize its people. It also does the "troublemakers" line, but has stern older women deliver the line.

The US has problems, but problems like having a Honda with 150000 miles on it. Russia and China were never functional to begin with and will never be functional because they insist on having this little microcosm that only seems to work when no one realizes that there is an alternative.

[Montmorency]

We have, but obviously we haven't reached a common conclusion.

1) Of course the mode is new, but propaganda is propaganda. From town criers to church sermons, to newspapers, then radio and television, then internet and social mode. There's going to be a new mode in 10 years.

2) The point is more about helping "Russian friendly" than "right wing". Again, it is a two way street. USA efforts have been to create a global economic community that will be dominated by US and exclude and isolate Russia and China. I consider that approach dangerous and not sustainable long term. At best you'll have those two countries imploding and creating instability in the entire world and at worst a war.

3) It kind of does, for two reasons. First, there's no impartial authority to which Russia (or any other nation) can bring this issue, so they can only decide whether to take it or fight back in the same way. Second reason - it would actually mean something if USA did stuff like that in the past but has stopped now. Of course, USA continually meddles in Russia and many other countries in the world, and it has been doing so even while Russia has been meddling in this election and will continue to do so whether Russia meddles in US internal affairs or not.

4) Yes. The point is that supporting Trump was not a goal but the means.

5) Ok.

6) Ok, so the totality is what? Russia meddled and had minor to no influence in swaying voters.

7) Really? Under attack? We're obviously too far apart to conduct a meaningful discussion on this issue.

Behind all of this, the reality is that US simply isn't ready to acknowledge the current situation in the world and adapt accordingly. It still tries to preserve to unipolar system it has grown so fond of. It doesn't want to let go of Bretton Woods system, it doesn't want to relinquish control of world's financial and political institutions and is actively trying to exclude and isolate any potential rivals for power. At the moment those are Russia and China, tomorrow it will be someone else.

It's not going to work in the long term and even the best case scenario for US would be a loss for most of the rest of the world. It can all be summed up with "there's gonna be shit in the world so we delay facing the shit in the USA". At one point USA will have to face those shits and clean them up or drown in them. The longer they wait, more shit both USA and the rest of the world will have to face.

Screw Putin, Putin is a consequence of that. Take that away and Putins around the world will find that people aren't actually so fond of them.

Like, "war never changes"? Guns, planes, nuclear weapons may be nothing new, just another tool of destruction - but the political consequences and the rules of engagement change drastically. Keep in mind, most people probably would have had no real problem with Putin publicly announcing, "We would like to see X_Candidate in office this year because from Russia's perspective..." and leaving it at that.

Of course I understand that Russia is competing with the United States. I don't agree that a weaker US and a stronger (temporarily) Russia are good for the world. What is friendly to Russia is intrinsically anti-democratic, and the far-right is anti-democratic. They are ideologically close to Putin besides being bought out by him. The thing is, what makes the mooted interference something less than an act of war? What has the United States done comparably to Russia since the Cold War? Let's say a socialist (or Sanders-progressive) government and President is elected in America, and immediately embarks on reforms of domestic and foreign policy to address inequality, violence, health, war, trade, climate change, etc. to make the US and by diffusion the world more democratic. You do understand that China and Russia will present even more resistance than they do now, because these reforms (which could generally also have the effect of loosening American economic domination) threaten their authoritarian regimes. And there's a serious danger here, because socialist and progressive distaste for combat and the American military specifically may indicate unilateral disarmament and a dearth of hard power to maintain the integrity and intent of reform. China and Russia are forces of reaction.

Russia and China will conflict with the US and their near abroad no matter what, and a revolution of solidarity isn't automatically forthcoming; don't scapegoat Amerikkka. I agree that if we reduced our footprint in the world and our military spending, they would to some extent reciprocate the slack. But these states fundamentally need to intervene in their near abroad and project population-unifying enemies. An alliance between the US and Venezuela or Iran would be more natural and attainable than an alliance between the US and Russia or China.

Finally, you keep assuming that Russian actions could not have had any effect on the election, and it's a pretty strange asseveration. Trump won by fewer than 100,000 votes in three states.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/hillary-clinton-margin-loss-votes

Trump’s margin of victory in those three states? Just 79,316 votes.

This latest number comes from Decision Desk’s final tally of Pennsylvania’s votes, where Trump won 2,961,875 votes to Clinton’s 2,915,440, a difference of 46,435 votes. Add that to the official results out of Wisconsin, where Clinton lost by 22,177 votes, and Michigan, which she lost by 10,704 votes, and there you have it: 0.057 percent of total voters cost Clinton the presidency.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three
(n.b. There's an interesting angle with Jill Stein, but that story needs more time to develop)

I'm not saying that Russia necessarily must have been the single greatest factor in the election, but how can your consistent denials not be perturbed by these margins? Evidentially, the argument "Russia had some effect" is more credible than "Russia had no or minimal effect". This is the case independent of what one thinks of Trump, Clinton, Putin, Sanders, the alt-right, Russia, the United States...

+++
+++
+++

Meanwhile...

Conservatives urge Trump to grant pardons in Russia probe (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/trump-russia-pardons-mueller-flynn-417094)


“I think he should be pardoning anybody who’s been indicted and make it clear that anybody else who gets indicted would be pardoned immediately,” said Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and senior vice president at the conservative Center for Security Policy.

“It’s kind of cruel what’s going on right now and the president should put these defendants out of their misery,” said Larry Klayman, a conservative legal activist. “I think he should pardon everybody — and pardon himself.”

“About time you pardoned General Flynn who has taken the biggest fall for all of you given the illegitimacy of this confessed crime in the wake of all this corruption,” Flynn’s brother, Joseph Flynn, wrote in a mid-December tweet. “Pardon Flynn NOW!” he added in a later message.

During a video interview last week at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. with Jack Posobiec, a pro-Trump activist widely considered a member of the alt-right, Flynn’s outspoken adult son Michael Flynn Jr. encouraged viewers to promote online messages calling for his father’s exoneration and pardon.

“Just keep pushing out those hashtags, the ‘#ClearFlynnNow’ and the ‘#PardonFlynnNow,” Flynn Jr., said.

“The whole super structure of the Russia investigation is compromised,” Fitton said. “Those caught up in it deserve some protection. Rather than just let the virus run its course, it’d be appropriate for the president to consider pardons for people who are caught up in the prosecution.”

In an Oct. 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed column — published on the eve of Mueller’s first indictments against Manafort and Gates and the release of the Papadopoulos guilty plea — two conservative lawyers called on Trump to “end this madness by immediately issuing a blanket presidential pardon to anyone involved in supposed collusion with Russia or Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign… and to anyone for any offense that has been investigated by Mr. Mueller’s office.”

“The president himself would be covered by the blanket pardon we recommend,” wrote the lawyers, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, veterans of the White House counsel’s office and Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. They argued that Russian election interference is a matter for a Congressional investigation, not a criminal one.

“If the Democrats take over, pardon everyone,” Cernovich said. “They’re coming for you anyway. They have their nuke with impeachment. You have your nuke with pardons. And then settle in for an interesting two years.”

:|

Can we have a Balkanization Clock to replace the Doomsday Clock?

[CrossLOPER]

“If the Democrats take over”
ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha.

They went against Trump and lost. Their heads are too far up.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha.

They went against Trump and lost. Their heads are too far up.

A fresh face with charisma would crush them. Hillary was neither fresh not charismatic. Obama was, and that is why we won his reelection when lesser Democratic candidates would not against the tea party tide that swept through the US Federal government in 2010-2014.

[Gilrandir]

The US has problems, but problems like having a Honda with 150000 miles on it. Russia and China were never functional to begin with and will never be functional because they insist on having this little microcosm that only seems to work when no one realizes that there is an alternative.

Russia - yes, China - hardly.



7. To repeat, we are still under attack, and there is nothing on the public agenda to counter ongoing Russian efforts. It might be easier to acknowledge nonchalance if the government had already taken effective action against the ratf***ing.


One more allegation involving Russian cyber troops:
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/02/15/552485/UK-Russia-NotPetya-cyber-attack

[rory_20_uk]

A fresh face with charisma would crush them. Hillary was neither fresh not charismatic. Obama was, and that is why we won his reelection when lesser Democratic candidates would not against the tea party tide that swept through the US Federal government in 2010-2014.

And the phrase "Yes We Can" is not much better than "Make America Great Again" - both are basically meaningless yet uplifting in a nonspecific way. Both Obama and Trump were relative outsiders with the hope that they could somehow shake up / "fix" all the ills.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Beggars want change they can believe in. But yeah it are meaningless phrases, Trump is no different in that, in the end you shouldn't trust anyone who wants the job, only narcists and sociopaths want it

[Husar]

Beggars want change they can believe in. But yeah it are meaningless phrases, Trump is no different in that, in the end you shouldn't trust anyone who wants the job, only narcists and sociopaths want it

They, and Bernie Sanders.

[Fragony]

They, and Bernie Sanders.

Must say that I honostly believe he's a really decent person, but it's always the jerk who gets the hottest girl

[Husar]

Must say that I honostly believe he's a really decent person, but it's always the jerk who gets the hottest girl

I think there was actually some research about how people often vote the psychopath into office and why that is. IIRC it's something about the belief that a strong leader is required and the fact that psychopaths often have great charisma.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/01/psychopath-workplace-jobs-study
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startling-accuracy-of-referring-to-politicians-as-psychopaths/260517/#

I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it's not like I would know how to change it. It seems a bit simple to say charisma makes you a good leader. Trump is an effective leader, but he's effectively leading people into their own demise, so.... :sweatdrop:

[Fragony]

I think there was actually some research about how people often vote the psychopath into office and why that is. IIRC it's something about the belief that a strong leader is required and the fact that psychopaths often have great charisma.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/01/psychopath-workplace-jobs-study
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startling-accuracy-of-referring-to-politicians-as-psychopaths/260517/#

I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it's not like I would know how to change it. It seems a bit simple to say charisma makes you a good leader. Trump is an effective leader, but he's effectively leading people into their own demise, so.... :sweatdrop:

Kinda funny, gf considers me to be a destructive force because of all these things in these links, reality is that I'm really kind, I hope.

[CrossLOPER]

Russia - yes, China - hardly.
China pushed for an economic boom with easy industrial access, but did so in the most short-sighted way possible. The economy is enormous, but unstable.

As for long-term problems, China has never ever been able to function properly without insulation and social pressure. It will eventually be difficult to control information as it gets more decentralized. You'll see that it is less functional the less control it holds.

[Fragony]

China pushed for an economic boom with easy industrial access, but did so in the most short-sighted way possible. The economy is enormous, but unstable.

As for long-term problems, China has never ever been able to function properly without insulation and social pressure. It will eventually be difficult to control information as it gets more decentralized. You'll see that it is less functional the less control it holds.

5 years or so. It's already brewing, China has a problem but they don't realise it yet.

[HopAlongBunny]

Who is Alex van der Zwann?
It seems he "facilitated" Manaforts' Ukrainian adventure.
Mueller has charged him with the usual: lying to the Special Counsel's Office.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyer/mueller-ups-pressure-on-trump-campaign-aides-with-new-charge-idUSKCN1G41YM

Interesting. The people who have anything to hide likely already know what he knows.
Thumb screws are not needed when you can bring continuous pressure.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A fresh face with charisma would crush them. Hillary was neither fresh not charismatic. Obama was, and that is why we won his reelection when lesser Democratic candidates would not against the tea party tide that swept through the US Federal government in 2010-2014.

I am not entirely happy that charisma seems to trump [pardon the pun] so much of the policy/skill evaluation that would ideally be prompting each citizen's vote, but ACIN is spot on in his assessment.

[Montmorency]

I am not entirely happy that charisma seems to trump [pardon the pun] so much of the policy/skill evaluation that would ideally be prompting each citizen's vote, but ACIN is spot on in his assessment.

Leaving the term "technocracy" aside, federal elections should be more of a resume-measuring contest than a question of charisma (or of fundraising).

I'll have more to say about this ACIN, but don't fall into the Democratic trap of "electoralitis". Democrats need to pass proper legislation in office, not just take office to hold it. Also one of the things that makes me skeptical of Sanders: if there's a right way to do things, and you want to implement it in government, you should have a pioneering hard line prepared for all the world to see, not just statement of intent: "Here are comprehensive drafts for just about everything government can touch. The second we have suitable majorities, these bills will be signed into law. Immediately. Here is the substance publicly available ahead of time, for people of knowledge and good will to assess. None of that bipartisan debate crap on the floor. Immediately. "

[CrossLOPER]

I am not entirely happy that charisma seems to trump [pardon the pun] so much of the policy/skill evaluation that would ideally be prompting each citizen's vote, but ACIN is spot on in his assessment.

One requires really basic feelings, the other requires that you sit down and think. Which one is easier?

[Fragony]

Who is Alex van der Zwann?
It seems he "facilitated" Manaforts' Ukrainian adventure.
Mueller has charged him with the usual: lying to the Special Counsel's Office.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyer/mueller-ups-pressure-on-trump-campaign-aides-with-new-charge-idUSKCN1G41YM

Interesting. The people who have anything to hide likely already know what he knows.
Thumb screws are not needed when you can bring continuous pressure.

Really rich legal gun for hire

[Montmorency]

Really rich legal gun for hire

His father-in-law is Russian oligarch German Khan. (German Khan??)



Humor-break time. Here's an image I fished out of my 2010 files:

https://i.imgur.com/noP3A84.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One requires really basic feelings, the other requires that you sit down and think. Which one is easier?

You are correct, of course, but I have always tried to use my brain and not solely my "oh, that poor little puppy" reactions to things when making decisions that matter. My weakness. :uneasy:

[Gilrandir]

China pushed for an economic boom with easy industrial access, but did so in the most short-sighted way possible. The economy is enormous, but unstable.

As for long-term problems, China has never ever been able to function properly without insulation and social pressure. It will eventually be difficult to control information as it gets more decentralized. You'll see that it is less functional the less control it holds.

I remember Soros or someone predicting the demise of US dollar a couple of years ago. But it is alive and kicking. The same could be said about China. Whatever gloom and doom might be augured for it, at present China's economy is booming and I see no reason why it should stop with no sign that political control is under any threat.

[HopAlongBunny]

Oh my. The Mueller inquiry just gets more convoluted.
Manafort and Gates got dinged with a 32-count indictment; in addition to the charges they already face.
Charges include lying on tax returns and conspiracy to commit bank fraud:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-mueller-files-new-charges-in-manafort-gates-case/2018/02/22/7db99c9c-1716-11e8-8b08-027a6ccb38eb_story.html?utm_term=.de3b80020e34

Gates threw over his lawyer and apparently backed out of the idea of a plea deal with Mueller:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-trump-staffer-rick-gates-fires-his-lawyer-in-russia-probe?ref=home

Made for TV movie? Nobody would believe it :p

[CrossLOPER]

I remember Soros or someone predicting the demise of US dollar a couple of years ago. But it is alive and kicking. The same could be said about China. Whatever gloom and doom might be augured for it, at present China's economy is booming and I see no reason why it should stop with no sign that political control is under any threat.
There's plenty of time.

Besides, this is the same logic climate deniers use. "HURR DURR DAR BE SNOW, LIBRULS LIE AGAIN!!!"

[Gilrandir]

There's plenty of time.



That's the best side of it. Nobody (of the living) will ever know whether you or me was right.

[CrossLOPER]

That's the best side of it. Nobody (of the living) will ever know whether you or me was right.

Oh, no! Is something going wrong with your life?? Don't do anything permanent to solve something temporary! :(

[HopAlongBunny]

I want the rights to a book titled: Mueller's Web

Gates came back into the fold; European politicians are apparently involved; shell companies the world over; money moving at lightspeed :coffeenews:
How is this all going to knit together? I await the next installment :yes:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/here-are-the-new-details-in-the-case-against-paul-manafort.html

The paper trail seems to be the result of Manafort's lack of technical savvy.
Documents would be sent to Gates as a pdf; pdf would be converted to Word and edited; the results would be packed into a new pdf and sent back.
The document exchange allowed the process to be tracked:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/how-manaforts-inability-to-convert-a-word-doc-to-pdf-helped-prosecutors/

[Sarmatian]

Even though it isn't presented as such, this is a case of money laundering and tax evasion (Gates and Manafort). A PR firm being paid by a government to do lobbying is common.

The problem isn't their lobbying but the fact that they didn't pay taxes.

[Gilrandir]

Oh, no! Is something going wrong with your life?? Don't do anything permanent to solve something temporary! :(

Ok. So let me know when China's economy has collapsed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ok. So let me know when China's economy has collapsed.

Which time? ~;)

Or are you asking about the current iteration only?

[Strike For The South]

Even though it isn't presented as such, this is a case of money laundering and tax evasion (Gates and Manafort). A PR firm being paid by a government to do lobbying is common.

The problem isn't their lobbying but the fact that they didn't pay taxes.

Let that be a lesson to all of you.

[Montmorency]

Let that be a lesson to all of you.

The only two certain things in life are death, and the IRS.

[Hooahguy]

So this was a surprise statement (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376087-trump-to-gop-senator-youre-afraid-of-the-nra) from Trump:


During the meeting, Trump asked Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) if they included raising the age limit for some gun purchases in the gun control bill they co-sponsored.

“We didn’t address that, Mr. President,” Toomey said.


“You know why? Because you’re afraid of the NRA,” Trump replied with a chuckle. “It’s a big issue right now. A lot of people are talking about it.”
“A lot of people are afraid of that issue — raising the age for that weapon to 21.”


Trump’s reiteration of support for raising the age for purchasing rifles shakes up the debate in the Senate.


“You can’t buy a handgun at 18, 19 or 20 — you have to wait until you’re 21 but you can buy the gun, the weapon used in this horrible shooting at 18,” he said.

I'd bet that a lot of the people who voted for him solely because of gun rights are scratching their heads right about now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So this was a surprise statement (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376087-trump-to-gop-senator-youre-afraid-of-the-nra) from Trump:
I'd bet that a lot of the people who voted for him solely because of gun rights are scratching their heads right about now.

Those of us who were Republicans before Trump was are not so surprised. He is a man for the expedient.

[Montmorency]

Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second' (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second)


Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.

“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.

"Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court," Trump responded.

"Due process second"? That's probably not so good coming from a POTUS.

EDIT: Then again (http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/02/opinion-analysis-court-tees-issue-constitutionality-indefinite-immigration-detention-9th-circuit/)...

The law, it seems, provides for indefinite detention of any non-citizen without recourse to bond. Oh, America.

(I hope they find this unconstitutional in the remand)

[a completely inoffensive name]

The only way Trump maintains above 35% approval is by being irrationally devoted to any and all conservative positions. If he can't even get this down, only those deep into the cult of personality will continue to follow.

[HopAlongBunny]

Poor Jared, he's been downgraded.
How can a guy responsible for Peace in the Middle East not have the highest security clearance?
Well, it seems to come down to serial failure to disclose, just about everything
Foreign meetings? Ooops
Financing? (as above)
It seems if he were not Trump's son-in-law his clearance would have been bounced almost from the outset:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/jared-kushner-has-gotten-away-with-security-clearance-omissions-that-typically-fell-less-influential-federal-employees/

How will we ever get peace in the Middle East, rebuilt infrastructure, justice reform,...etc.?

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-jared-kushner-do-in-trump-administration-2017-4

[rory_20_uk]

Poor Jared, he's been downgraded.
How can a guy responsible for Peace in the Middle East not have the highest security clearance?
Well, it seems to come down to serial failure to disclose, just about everything
Foreign meetings? Ooops
Financing? (as above)
It seems if he were not Trump's son-in-law his clearance would have been bounced almost from the outset:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/jared-kushner-has-gotten-away-with-security-clearance-omissions-that-typically-fell-less-influential-federal-employees/

How will we ever get peace in the Middle East, rebuilt infrastructure, justice reform,...etc.?

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-jared-kushner-do-in-trump-administration-2017-4

With all due respect (i.e. none) he is the one of the worst type of Trust-fund non-entities who would be the deputy manager of a small burger franchise based on his own abilities.

But due to his family's wealth and connections he has not so much ascended as been propelled upwards and now is an ornament in meetings.

Lots of foreign leaders like him since they understand nepotism and like easy ways of bribing for influence. And he is probably the best target for that - he can't even fill a form in correctly!

~:smoking:

[HopAlongBunny]

Is America going back for the future?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-right-cant-fight-the-future?ref=home

Trump sounds like someone from the late 40's-early 50's, but is he really trying to make it happen?
The policies he appears most committed to certainly give that impression. Policies which "restore coal and steel" may certainly help some, but they no longer represent the bulk of the economy. For the majority (who are doing other things) the pay-off will be very weak indeed.

[edyzmedieval]

Imposing tariffs will cause only problems in the long term and as you've seen, EU immediately reacted to this.

http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/03/juncker-responds-to-trump-s-trade-tariffs-we-can-also-do-stupid-

[Montmorency]

Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second' (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second)



"Due process second"? That's probably not so good coming from a POTUS.

Trump talks to donors (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/trump-maralago-remarks/index.html)


President Donald Trump bemoaned a decision not to investigate Hillary Clinton after the 2016 presidential election, decrying a "rigged system" that still doesn't have the "right people" in place to fix it, during a freewheeling speech to Republican donors in Florida on Saturday.

In the closed-door remarks, a recording of which was obtained by CNN, Trump also praised China's President Xi Jinping for recently consolidating power and extending his potential tenure, musing he wouldn't mind making such a maneuver himself.
"He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump said. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."

The remarks, delivered inside the ballroom at his Mar-a-Lago estate during a lunch and fundraiser, were upbeat, lengthy, and peppered with jokes and laughter. But Trump's words reflected his deeply felt resentment that his actions during the 2016 campaign remain under scrutiny while those of his former rival, Hillary Clinton, do not.

"I'm telling you, it's a rigged system folks," Trump said. "I've been saying that for a long time. It's a rigged system. And we don't have the right people in there yet. We have a lot of great people, but certain things, we don't have the right people."

If this man understood the things he he says, the logical next step would be to scream into a microphone at a campaign rally (which he is still (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-to-hold-campaign-rally-in-pennsylvania-days-before-its-special-election/article/2650574) permitted to hold for some reason) about <you know what>.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...the logical next step would be to scream into a microphone at a campaign rally (which he is still (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-to-hold-campaign-rally-in-pennsylvania-days-before-its-special-election/article/2650574) permitted to hold for some reason) about <you know what>.

No US political campaign is ever really at an end, so long as one dollar remains to be spent. Zombie Campaigning (http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2018/investigations/zombie-campaigns/spending-millions-after-office/)

[CrossLOPER]

If this man understood...
He does not have the mental capacity for that function.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump talks to donors (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/trump-maralago-remarks/index.html)



If this man understood the things he he says, the logical next step would be to scream into a microphone at a campaign rally (which he is still (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-to-hold-campaign-rally-in-pennsylvania-days-before-its-special-election/article/2650574) permitted to hold for some reason) about <you know what>.

The president for life quip legit scares me. The man doesn't really have a sense of humor, unless you consider tales of crude mannerisms to be jokes.

[HopAlongBunny]

"I won't testify and you can't make me!!!"
Famous last words of defiance, or a clever ploy?
Sam Nunberg on receiving a subpoena by Mueller's grand jury spurted out a lot of stuff that was barely coherent:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/591001865/ex-trump-campaign-aide-vows-to-fight-mueller-subpoena-in-tv-tirades

As the circle tightens this sort of stonewalling and evasion might become more common.


https://youtu.be/nxObgJOkY6Y

If the Special Prosecutor wants to talk you, it's a good idea to sing like a canary.
Lawfare gives a little overview of what can happen:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/sam-nunbergs-media-meltdown

I can't find it, but it sounds like Nunberg is now singing a different song.
The shift from "No" to "Probably" over the course of a day is a miraculous conversion :on_angel2:

[CrossLOPER]

"Arrest me."
Kek. This is going to be a meme.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you are gonna be the "hardass" when facing that kind of an investigation, the model for doing so is probably G. Gordon....

[Hooahguy]

And another one bites the dust (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/us/politics/gary-cohn-resigns.html).


Gary D. Cohn, President Trump’s top economic adviser, said on Tuesday that he would resign, becoming the latest in a series of high-profile departures from the Trump administration.


It makes sense though with all the fuss abut tariffs and whatnot. I could see how this may be the last straw, especially if this quote from Cohn is true from Fire and Fury (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/the-wildest-claims-about-trump-from-michael-wolffs-fire-and-fury.html):


It's worse than you can imagine. An idiot surrounded by clowns. Trump won't read anything - not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers; nothing. He gets up halfway through meetings with world leaders because he is bored. And his staff is no better. Kushner is an entitled baby who knows nothing. Bannon is an arrogant prick who thinks he's smarter than he is. Trump is less a person than a collection of terrible traits. No one will survive the first year but his family. I hate the work, but feel I need to stay because I'm the only person there with a clue what he's doing. The reason so few jobs have been filled is that they only accept people who pass ridiculous purity tests, even for midlevel policy-making jobs where the people will never see the light of day. I am in a constant state of shock and horror.

[Fragony]

This is unexpected, Trump is going to meet Kim in North Korea

[rory_20_uk]

This is unexpected, Trump is going to meet Kim in North Korea

Really? He loves dictators - they know how to flatter him properly, how to remove all demonstrators and he really appears to envy their ability to do basically what they want without "rules" and all that democratic baggage. He will also be the first President to do this which again flatters his ego.

I doubt anything will be achieved since North Korea would be mad to give up nukes for a pinkie promise that the USA will try really hard this time not to interfere at a later date.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Talking is good. As for Trump, I think his ego is a facade, it's too much

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Talking is good. As for Trump, I think his ego is a facade, it's too much

An interesting comment Frags, and certainly at least partially true. Trump does/has/will use his bombast and overt egotism to try to manipulate people with whom he negotiates. The problem is that he does this all in his own head, with very little coordination with his team. I suspect very few of that team know what's "real" ego and what's "show" ego. At times I worry that Trump isn't sure of that line either.

It is a very 'poker player's' approach to foreign policy. And I have known too many poker player's who were so enamored of their own "poker-face" abilities that they forgot the part about needing to have a decent hand...

[spmetla]

I'm all for them talking to each other, better than talking about preventative strikes.

I just hope really hard that Trump doesn't go in there alone and start making his 'deals' seeing as he hasn't a clue what's important over there. I'd be worried that he negotiate our complete withdrawal from South Korea for unenforceable nuclear/ICBM agreements which allow the ROK to fall easily into the orbit of the PRC once we have no skin in the game. Everyone knows that if we don't have boots on the ground to unfortunately be in harms way and guarantee our entry on the side of our allies that we'd probably weasel out like we did for South Vietnam in 1975. If we were to pullout and then a conflict break out a few years later it'd be very easy to try and just leave it at further tough talk and sanctions rather than confront a nuclear North Korea in its consolidation of the peninsula.

After over a year of his ego I think it's anything but a facade. If it were just a front I'd imagine a smooth business machine running the white house which is the opposite of what we've seen. His 'front' might have been useful for business and investors when you saying good things to boost confidence can be enough but it's clearly not working on the scale of POTUS which allows enough scrutiny to ensure that no amount of bombast can whitewash the BS. His ego seems to be the only constant in his policies, it's not America First, it's Trump First.

[HopAlongBunny]

... it's not America First, it's Trump First.

He does more changes than a fashionista shopping for a new outfit.
No matter what you do Mr. Trump, your butt will still look fat :shame:

[Montmorency]

Trump on virtual violence


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C_IBSuXIoo



Dovetails with Trump on actual bodily violence


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFgjNPiq9Cw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHvLtn2BhOk


[this could be a very long list]

[Husar]

There's also the little detail that the video shows Wolfenstein and Fallout, which are made by Bethesda, which is owned by ZeniMax.
And it just so happens that the president's brother is on the Board of Directors of ZeniMax.
https://www.zenimax.com/about

Has he done anything about guns though or does he just switch topics now until the next big mass shooting?

[HopAlongBunny]

Steven Colbert had David Byrne on The Daily Show.
Byrne was punting his album American Utopia; pretty normal stuff.
I almost had a fit during the interview. Byrne sketched out a vague outline of a way to bring Kushner to life.
It involved looking just beyond that bland exterior, revealing the slow moving train-wreck of a Greek Tragedy; "the sins of the father being visited upon the progeny"
The vision of the Fates mercilessly pushing from behind to make an outcome nobody desires inevitable; Oh I hope this talk show one-off becomes a reality! :yes:

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump and Kim to share cheeseburgers! No they won't! Yes they will...possibly; reply hazy please contact your State Dep't later: buzz tone

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/09/white-house-north-korea-meeting-conditions-449448

Ok, it seems the twitter feed got ahead of actual thinking.
So, how might the stupidest man in Washington fare in N.Korea?
That depends on a lot of things, including as it turns out whether it happens at all:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/09/nixon-goes-to-mcdonaldland/

The above article notes that the meeting was the dangling carrot already; Trump just gave it away for nothing if he follows through.
Fortunately Trump rarely follows through; unless it makes him money.

[Fragony]

Feeding Kim cheeseburgers? Your national debt is high enough as it is

[Montmorency]

Xpost Trump vs. Kim

https://i.imgur.com/y6DE8K3.jpg

[a completely inoffensive name]

Leaving the term "technocracy" aside, federal elections should be more of a resume-measuring contest than a question of charisma (or of fundraising).

I'll have more to say about this ACIN, but don't fall into the Democratic trap of "electoralitis". Democrats need to pass proper legislation in office, not just take office to hold it. Also one of the things that makes me skeptical of Sanders: if there's a right way to do things, and you want to implement it in government, you should have a pioneering hard line prepared for all the world to see, not just statement of intent: "Here are comprehensive drafts for just about everything government can touch. The second we have suitable majorities, these bills will be signed into law. Immediately. Here is the substance publicly available ahead of time, for people of knowledge and good will to assess. None of that bipartisan debate crap on the floor. Immediately. "

I missed this among the daily show that is "what did the president say now?"

I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I think it would just be so much easier for the public to swallow with someone new rather than an experienced politician. Democrats are not good at PR. Cue the stats about people hating 'Obamacare' but they would love to keep the ACA.

Personally, I can only think of a few policies off the top of my head that would be both straightforward to implement, would be beneficial to the Democratic party, and has a chance of a broader coalition of support among the public.
A. Codified paid parental leave, both maternal and paternal. (Treat it as minimum wage, with a bottom limit of 12 paid weeks, states free to expand as they wish)
B. Amend the Reapportionment Act of 1929 to include the Wyoming Rule. (This would mitigate a portion of the gerrymandering disadvantage Democrats face in House elections in a scenario where SCOTUS upholds gerrymandering)
C. Automatic voter registration. (Several states already have their own programs, again leave it up to them with minimal standards to meet).

[Montmorency]

I missed this among the daily show that is "what did the president say now?"

I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I think it would just be so much easier for the public to swallow with someone new rather than an experienced politician. Democrats are not good at PR. Cue the stats about people hating 'Obamacare' but they would love to keep the ACA.

Personally, I can only think of a few policies off the top of my head that would be both straightforward to implement, would be beneficial to the Democratic party, and has a chance of a broader coalition of support among the public.
A. Codified paid parental leave, both maternal and paternal. (Treat it as minimum wage, with a bottom limit of 12 paid weeks, states free to expand as they wish)
B. Amend the Reapportionment Act of 1929 to include the Wyoming Rule. (This would mitigate a portion of the gerrymandering disadvantage Democrats face in House elections in a scenario where SCOTUS upholds gerrymandering)
C. Automatic voter registration. (Several states already have their own programs, again leave it up to them with minimal standards to meet).

One problem is that many reforms would necessarily be so massive, they could not be drafted by a small team ahead of elections. For these one is largely limited to advertising a set of principles or ideals that points in the direction of the reform. But you need a way to legislate a scaleable agenda into place so that, if hypothetically one party no longer has the supermajorities to pass a Universal Healthcare measure, the government would be provisioned to go on drafting and testing and building it up in the national consciousness in time for the next round.

Refund the IRS and do everyone's taxes for free. Relatively easy if the lobbyists are out of the picture for even a moment.


I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I think it would just be so much easier for the public to swallow with someone new rather than an experienced politician. Democrats are not good at PR.

Firebreathers like this guy?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/27/could-this-military-guy-democrat-find-a-magic-formula-to-win-back-blue-collar-voters
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/02/richard-ojeda-west-virginia-blue-army-one-217217
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqsa0c8lHv0


After I introduced myself, Ojeda uncorked a nearly unbroken, 13-minute tirade in which he called lobbyists “the absolute scum of the earth,” said they should have to wear body cameras in the Capitol, said they shouldn’t even be allowed “in the damn Capitol,” and told me one of the first things he did as a state legislator was give energy industry lobbyists a tongue-lashing. “I threw Big Energy out of my office!” he said. “They said, ‘Well, is there anything we can do to change your mind?’ I said, ‘You can get yo’ ass out of my office.’” He continued by scorching lawmakers for making decisions based on corporate campaign contributions instead of the interests of their constituents.

“Bootlickers!” he screamed into the phone.

“Bootlickers!”

[a completely inoffensive name]

One problem is that many reforms would necessarily be so massive, they could not be drafted by a small team ahead of elections. For these one is largely limited to advertising a set of principles or ideals that points in the direction of the reform. But you need a way to legislate a scaleable agenda into place so that, if hypothetically one party no longer has the supermajorities to pass a Universal Healthcare measure, the government would be provisioned to go on drafting and testing and building it up in the national consciousness in time for the next round.

Again, I would agree. That's why the three I listed above would not be overly complicated to put into practice (A and C would be essentially amendments to previously passed bills from the early 90s) and give a good return on investments.
From my perspective, Trumpism has not invalidated the 2012 GOP autopsy report. Once Democrats find themselves above the stacked deck, many regions become competitive due to demographics and other regions will flip. Trump's hold on the section of blue collar whites is only as good as the Dem's were. If you ask them in 2020 if they were better now than 4 years ago, only those locked into into alt-right consciousness would deny the lack of effort made by this administration to bring back the coal jobs, fight the opioid crisis and revitalize the rust belt. This analysis also ignores the trends I have seen reported online about the millenials and gen Z workers being more receptive to participating in labor unions (which skew workers left by their nature) than their fathers and grandfathers.



Refund the IRS and do everyone's taxes for free. Relatively easy if the lobbyists are out of the picture for even a moment.

This almost happened in California (lost by one vote). Perhaps this is simply a case of unmined political gold that TurboTax has successfully kept hidden?



Firebreathers like this guy?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/27/could-this-military-guy-democrat-find-a-magic-formula-to-win-back-blue-collar-voters
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/02/richard-ojeda-west-virginia-blue-army-one-217217
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqsa0c8lHv0

I do think men like him are the key to the future for the Democratic party. If Dems wish to become competitive in regions like West Virginia, they will need to become inclusive of men like Ojeda into the Democratic platform.

[Montmorency]

I do think men like him are the key to the future for the Democratic party. If Dems wish to become competitive in regions like West Virginia, they will need to become inclusive of men like Ojeda into the Democratic platform.


West Virginia Democrats tend to diverge a bit from the national party, typically marrying a yeoman’s populism with heavy doses of social conservatism. Ojeda is different still, with aggressively and blunt rhetoric reminiscent of Donald Trump, and politics that run the gamut but skew towards the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. On abortion, Ojeda said “I hate the idea of telling a woman what to do with her body,” and expresses support for Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood. He supports Dreamers in their battle for immigration reform, is open to some forms of gun control, marijuana legalization and makes a case for a government role in providing healthcare.

He's already left of just about any Blue Dog, with the advantage of economic populism rather than corporatism. Ideally the Democratic Party should be syncretizing economic populism and globalism, exporting it. The Dems should never be allowed to forget that US domestic policy is foreign policy of consequence.

But with Democrats like these...

https://i.imgur.com/pPJEEEc.jpg

[HopAlongBunny]

House Intel Panel:
No Collusion

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/12/593016429/republicans-on-house-intel-panel-conclude-there-was-no-collusion-with-russia

The Panel minority dissent:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/13/593323095/house-intelligence-democrats-release-response-to-gop-russia-conclusions

The public record of what little we definitely know about Mueller's investigation:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/muellers-choice-of-criminal-charges-why-the-trump-team-should-be-very-worried.html

When Mueller lowers the boom there may not be enough popcorn for the full campaign.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And adieu Rex Tillerson, we hardly knew ye.

The White House must speak with one voice, and that voice must be the President's.



On the other hand, it might be a LEEEEETLE easier to keep a staff if Trump himself knew what he was going to say more than 20 seconds prior to his saying/tweeting it.

[rory_20_uk]

He didn't appear to be doing a particularly great job - partly since he was somewhat bought into the "disruptive" agenda Donnie was peddling which unsurprisingly caused all the ones you want to stay to leave ASAP and of course not having Congress et al bought into the concept of a State Department that was 1/3 the size of what it was. There probably were changes that could be made, but "leadership" is supposedly taking others along with you.

But even with all the wilful damage and disruption he was creating, he still made the carnal sin of making Donnie look like a prat. Not falling foul of this requires someone with all the freedom of thought of a cult member who is happy for history to be rewritten one tweet at a time.

No idea about the new person but Donnie is currently saying how they are really good, close friends who he knows really well. In six months time he'll be denying he every did more than meet him twice in meetings and he too is too much "establishment" which apparently code for "refuses to believe that this is all some sort of reality show on MTV".

~:smoking:

[spmetla]

Well Rex Tillerson is fired as Secretary of State:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politics/trump-tillerson-latest/index.html
In his outgoing remarks, Tillerson defends his record

This is an odd one too that will be overshadowed by Tillerson's departure:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politics/john-mcentee-white-house-security-clearance/index.html
Longtime Trump aide fired over financial crime investigation

(CNN)President Donald Trump's longtime personal aide John McEntee was fired because he is currently under investigation by the Department of Homeland Security for serious financial crimes, a source familiar with his firing told CNN.

The charges are not related to the President, the source said.
Minutes after news of his departure broke, the Trump campaign announced McEntee would be joining the reelection effort as a senior adviser for campaign operations.
McEntee escorted from the White House on Monday, three sources with knowledge of the matter told CNN. Two sources said McEntee was pushed out because of issues with his security clearance, making him just the latest aide to be forced out because of difficulties obtaining a full security clearance.

[Montmorency]

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tillerson-fired-suicide-pact-mattis-mnuchin-2018-3


In October 2017, BuzzFeed News reported that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Tillerson had forged a "suicide pact," whereby all three agreed to leave if Trump fired one of them.

Elsewhere I saw McMaster included in the pact. Make it happen.

[Strike For The South]

Everyday I grow more weary of a man who is running everything into the damn ground.

I have spent 13 years on this forum wondering what the downfall of Western Civilization would be. Turns out it's simply all of our own worst vices.

Not with a bang but a whimper indeed.

It is March 13 2017 and Vladimar Putin is still a fascist.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Everyday I grow more weary of a man who is running everything into the damn ground.

I have spent 13 years on this forum wondering what the downfall of Western Civilization would be. Turns out it's simply all of our own worst vices.

Not with a bang but a whimper indeed.

It is March 13 2017 and Vladimar Putin is still a fascist.

Based on some old posts of Monty's I started listening to some discussions on Hannah Arendt and her notion of the 'Banality of Evil'.
Most men do not commit to evil actions because they are sociopaths, they simply do it to get ahead in the system which they operate in. The banality comes from the common ignorance we all share of turning the blinders on to what the outcome is of the overall system, only focusing on what our relative position is within that system.

This is what I think is going on with many agents in Trump's administration and the GOP. It's a shame that we as a nation were in a position to learn this lesson and internalize it, but didn't; I guess when faced with such atrocity it is easier to think of such things as somehow born in a culture wholly different from our own so that we can rest easier at night. Another common ignorance that leaves many in the US today wondering how we find White Nationalists marching in Charleston...

[Montmorency]

What did I say?

[a completely inoffensive name]

What did I say? you quoted her in a different thread some time ago about the relationship of violence and power, I think. I made a note to learn more about her and only just got around to it recently. I would have to look up the specific post to remember the details.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump won PA's 18th by 20 points.
The election just held seems to be a win for the Dem's by about 500 votes; this in a race that was "safe" for the R's.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43390652

One off or possible tsunami?
It seems a lot will hinge on turnout. Trump does not appear to be a positive factor, even for incumbent Republicans.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-enthusiasm-gap-could-turn-a-democratic-wave-into-a-tsunami/

Could be a very interesting mid-term season.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FQfThSU11E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAIsC6zK15E

[spmetla]

Another Friday full of news and scandal...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-tries-move-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-federal-court-claims-she-n857491
Trump tries to move Stormy Daniels lawsuit to federal court, claims she owes him $20 million

President Donald Trump and his personal attorney are trying to get a lawsuit by adult film star Stormy Daniels transferred to federal court — and they claim she's on the hook for at least $20 million for violating a secrecy agreement signed just before the election.

An attorney for the actress accused the Trump team of "bullying tactics" for the legal maneuver, which is aimed at pushing the dispute into private arbitration.

"To put it simply, they want to hide the truth from the American people. We will oppose this effort at every turn," said Michael Avenatti, the lawyer representing Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford.
Trump attorney Michael Cohen, with the consent of the president, filed a "notice of removal" on Friday that contends Clifford's suit should be moved from California state court to federal court because the parties live in different places and the amount at stake is more than $75,000.

Related: Another Trump lawyer signed Stormy Daniels gag-order documents

The new paperwork showed that Trump is being represented by Charles Harder, the high-profile attorney who won a $140 million verdict for Hulk Hogan against Gawker and who has also worked for Harvey Weinstein, Jared Kushner and a constellation of Hollywood stars. He also represented Melania Trump in her successful defamation suit against the Daily Mail newspaper.

Cohen and Harder did not respond to requests for comment from NBC News.
Clifford says in her lawsuit that she had an "intimate" relationship with Trump, who was married at the time, in 2006 and 2007. Trump denies the allegation.

In the fall of 2016, while Trump was running for president, Clifford signed a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for $130,000, the suit says. Cohen says he "facilitated" the payment with his own funds, through a company he created, and was not reimbursed by the Trump Organization or campaign.

Clifford's suit says that Trump never signed the agreement, making it null and void. She asked the Los Angeles Superior Court to declare it invalid, allowing her to speak with impunity.

Cohen had already secretly obtained a temporary restraining order against Clifford from a private arbitrator. He says the 2016 agreement specified that any dispute would be resolved through arbitration.

The removal notice says that the agreement calls for $1 million in damages for every breach and alleges that Clifford has broken it at least 20 times.

"This is simply more of the same bullying tactics from the president and Mr. Cohen," Avenatti said.

"They are now attempting to remove this case in order to increase their chances that the matter will ultimately be decided in private arbitration, behind closed doors, outside of public view and scrutiny.
"The fact that a sitting president is pursuing over $20 million in bogus 'damages' against a private citizen, who is only trying to tell the public what really happened, is truly remarkable — likely unprecedented in our history.

"We are not going away and we will not be intimidated by these threats."

The White House has sought to distance Trump from the Clifford dispute, while Avenatti has been highlighting ties between the president and the matter.

Cohen used his Trump Organization email to arrange for the transfer of funds before he wired the $130,000 to Clifford. And an in-house lawyer for the company also signed documents linked to last month's gag order.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbis-andrew-mccabe-is-fired-a-little-more-than-24-hours-before-he-could-retire/2018/03/16/e055a22a-2895-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.2693ae8b7a31
FBI’s Andrew McCabe is fired a little more than 24 hours before he could retire

Attorney General Jeff Sessions late Friday night fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a little more than 24 hours before McCabe was set to retire.

Sessions announced the decision in a statement just before 10 p.m., noting that both the Justice Department Inspector General and the FBI office that handles discipline had found “that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.”

He said based on those findings and the recommendation of the department’s senior career official, “I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.”

The move will likely cost McCabe a significant portion of his retirement benefits, though it is possible he could bring a legal challenge. McCabe has been fighting vigorously to keep his job, and on Thursday, he spent nearly four hours inside the Justice Department pleading his case.

Michael R. Bromwich, McCabe’s attorney, said in a lengthy statement responding to the allegations that he had “never before seen the type of rush to judgment — and rush to summary punishment — that we have witnessed in this case.” He cited in particular President Trump’s attacks on McCabe on Twitter and the White House press secretary’s comments about him on Thursday — which he said were “quite clearly designed to put inappropriate pressure on the Attorney General to act accordingly.”
“This intervention by the White House in the DOJ disciplinary process is unprecedented, deeply unfair, and dangerous,” Bromwich said.

McCabe has become a lightning rod in the political battles over the FBI’s most high-profile cases, including the Russia investigation and the probe of Hillary Clinton’s email practices. He has been a frequent target of criticism from President Trump.

His firing — which was recommended by the FBI office that handles discipline — stems from a Justice Department inspector general investigation that found McCabe authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to the media about a Clinton-related case, then misled investigators about his actions in the matter, people familiar with the matter have said. He stepped down earlier this year from the No. 2 job in the bureau after FBI Director Christopher A. Wray was briefed on the inspector general’s findings, though he technically was still an employee.

McCabe, who conducted interviews with several media outlets in advance of his firing, told the New York Times that the allegations against him were “part of an effort to discredit me as a witness” in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

“The idea that I was dishonest is just wrong,” he said.

Through a representative, McCabe declined to be interviewed by The Washington Post.

Bromwich, who himself is a former Justice Department Inspector General, suggested in his statement that office treated McCabe unfairly, cleaving off from a larger investigation its findings on McCabe and not giving McCabe an adequate chance to respond to the allegations he faced. He said McCabe and his lawyers were given limited access to the inspector general’s draft report late last month, saw a final report and evidence a week ago and were “receiving relevant exculpatory evidence as recently as two days ago.”
“With so much at stake, this process has fallen far short of what Mr. McCabe deserved,” Bromwich said. “This concerted effort to accelerate the process in order to beat the ticking clock of his scheduled retirement violates any sense of decency and basic principles of fairness.”

[FBI disciplinary office recommends firing former deputy director Andrew McCabe]

A spokesman for the inspector general’s office did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Some in the bureau might view McCabe’s termination so close to retirement as an unnecessarily harsh and politically influenced punishment for a man who spent more than 20 years at the FBI. The White House had seemed to support such an outcome, though a spokeswoman said the decision was up to Sessions.

“We do think that it is well documented that he has had some very troubling behavior and by most accounts a bad actor,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday.

Trump and McCabe’s relationship has long been fraught. The president has previously suggested that McCabe was biased in favor of Clinton, his political opponent, pointing out that McCabe’s wife, who ran as a Democrat for a seat in the Virginia legislature, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the political action committee of Terry McAuliffe, then the state’s governor and a noted Clinton ally. During an Oval office meeting in May, Trump is said to have asked McCabe whom he voted for in the presidential election and vented about the donations.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz put McCabe in his crosshairs during a broad look at alleged improprieties in the handling of the Clinton email case. In the course of that review, Horowitz found that McCabe had authorized two FBI officials to talk to then-Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett for a story about the case and another investigation into Clinton’s family foundation. Barrett now works for The Washington Post.

Background conversations with reporters are commonplace in Washington, though McCabe’s authorizing such a talk was viewed as inappropriate because the matter being discussed was an ongoing criminal investigation. The story ultimately presented McCabe as a somewhat complicated figure — one who some FBI officials thought was standing in the way of the Clinton Foundation investigation, but who also seemed to be pushing back against Justice Department officials who did not believe there was a case to be made.

McCabe, who turns 50 on Sunday and would have then been eligible for his full retirement benefits, had quickly ascended through senior roles to the No. 2 leadership post. He briefly served in an interim capacity as the FBI director, in the months between when Trump fired James B. Comey from the post and Wray was confirmed by the Senate.
McCabe’s team on Friday night released a bevy of statements from former national security officials supporting the former deputy director, including from former Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr.; former National Security Agency Deputy Director Richard H. Ledgett, Jr.; former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg; former FBI national security official Michael B. Steinbach; and former Justice Department national security official Mary B. McCord.

Steinbach said McCabe had “become a convenient scapegoat so that narrow political objectives can be achieved.” McCord said she “never doubted his honesty or motivations, and can say without hesitation that he was one of the finest FBI agents with whom I ever worked.” Notably absent was a statement from Comey, McCabe’s former boss, though Comey did say after McCabe stepped down as deputy director that he “stood tall over the last 8 months, when small people were trying to tear down an institution we all depend on.”

Comey is still considered a key subject in Horowit’z probe of how the FBI handled the Clinton email case.

[Hooahguy]

If you havent read McCabe's statement, here it is (https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/974833863200518146/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fpolitics%2Fcomments%2F850xov%2Fmegathread_former_fbi_depu ty_director_andrew%2F):


I have been an FBI Special Agent for over 21 years. I spent half of that time investigating Russian Organized Crime as a street agent and Supervisor in New York City. I have spent the second half of my career focusing on national security issues and protecting this country from terrorism. I served in some of the most challenging, demanding investigative and leadership roles in the FBI. And I was privileged to serve as Deputy Director during a particularly tough time.

For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us. The President's tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about us.

No more.

The investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility. The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI's involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. Nothing was further from the truth. In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau, and to make clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.

The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter. It was the type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week. In fact, it was the same type of work that I continued to do under Director Wray, at his request. The investigation subsequently focused on who I talked to, when I talked to them, and so forth. During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me. And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.

But looking at that in isolation completely misses the big picture. The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.

Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey's accounts of his discussions with the President. The OIG's focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sense only when viewed through this lens. Thursday's comments from the White House are just the latest example of this.

This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to tain the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally. It is part of this Administration's ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel's work.

I have always prided myself on serving my country with distinction and integrity, and I always encouraged those around me to do the same. Just ask them. To have my career end in this way, and to be accused of lacking candor when at worst I was distracted in the midst of chaotic events, is incredibly disappointing and unfair. But it will not erase the important work I was privileged to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.

I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.

Pretty harsh stuff. I'm actually rather shocked how forward McCabe was about this. But then again, I would probably be pretty angry over being fired literally a day before I qualified for my pension too.

[Montmorency]

From what I've been reading, Stormy Daniels (and Buzzfeed) has Trump legally outmaneuvered.

Presumably McCabe will retire to Twitter to tagteam with Comey in slamming the White House. By Twitter, I mean depositions.

[Fragony]

Trump certainly has personality issues.. Got to wonder where it came from. Really stern father? Normal people aren't this resentful, I can see a little Trumpie crying in a corner

[Strike For The South]

Trump certainly has personality issues.. Got to wonder where it came from. Really stern father? Normal people aren't this resentful, I can see a little Trumpie crying in a corner

Money and arrogance tend to exacerbate bad personality traits.

[Husar]

What I really don't get is how Trump can be the candidate of choice for christians. Not just in the US but also some here in Europe.
He's rich, arrogant, condescending, vain, proud of himself, bullies others and so on and that's not even considering the sex scandals they can explain away with fake news about them being democrat conspiracies with paid actors. Pretty much all of that is not how Jesus or the bible in general described a good christian. And yet, just because he mentions God once in a while, many christians think he is somehow the christian candidate. Then again I also don't get why christians need a gun to turn the other cheek, but...

[Hooahguy]

What I really don't get is how Trump can be the candidate of choice for christians. Not just in the US but also some here in Europe.
He's rich, arrogant, condescending, vain, proud of himself, bullies others and so on and that's not even considering the sex scandals they can explain away with fake news about them being democrat conspiracies with paid actors. Pretty much all of that is not how Jesus or the bible in general described a good christian. And yet, just because he mentions God once in a while, many christians think he is somehow the christian candidate. Then again I also don't get why christians need a gun to turn the other cheek, but...

I wouldn't be shocked if this Stormy Daniels thing turns up that Trump forced her to get an abortion. And I would be less surprised if then the Evangelicals didnt care.

[HopAlongBunny]

And I would be less surprised if then the Evangelicals didnt care.

The "Christian Right": emulate Jesus, act like Trump.
Face it, he is what they wish they were.

[Montmorency]

What I really don't get is how Trump can be the candidate of choice for christians. Not just in the US but also some here in Europe.
He's rich, arrogant, condescending, vain, proud of himself, bullies others and so on and that's not even considering the sex scandals they can explain away with fake news about them being democrat conspiracies with paid actors. Pretty much all of that is not how Jesus or the bible in general described a good christian. And yet, just because he mentions God once in a while, many christians think he is somehow the christian candidate. Then again I also don't get why christians need a gun to turn the other cheek, but...

Every candidate talks about their faith, including Clinton (https://thinkprogress.org/hillary-clinton-is-now-the-most-religious-candidate-running-for-president-heres-why-that-matters-7cd6819374e5/) and Obama (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thedudeabides/obama-on-faith-the-exclusive-interview/) and Sanders (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289002-sanders-i-am-not-an-atheist). Here's what happens if you run an atheist candidate (http://nashvillepublicradio.org/post/both-parties-are-watching-one-middle-tennessee-statehouse-race-omens#stream/0): you lose by 50 points (https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/tennessee-state-senate-district-14). The candidate only did about as well as Clinton in the counties of the district, though generically there should be at least some shift.


The "Christian Right": emulate Jesus, act like Trump.
Face it, he is what they wish they were.

Interesting thing about the Christian Right in the past two generations is how they seem to have utterly shed any sense of shame.

[Montmorency]

Speaking of which...

Seamus Fermanagh

Here's the father of my current governor speechifying in the 80s about "Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective" (http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm).

[spmetla]

What I really don't get is how Trump can be the candidate of choice for christians. Not just in the US but also some here in Europe.
He's rich, arrogant, condescending, vain, proud of himself, bullies others and so on and that's not even considering the sex scandals they can explain away with fake news about them being democrat conspiracies with paid actors. Pretty much all of that is not how Jesus or the bible in general described a good christian. And yet, just because he mentions God once in a while, many christians think he is somehow the christian candidate. Then again I also don't get why christians need a gun to turn the other cheek, but...

Part of it is probably our harkening back to the Puritans who were too extreme for England. That same Puritan belief also held in it that wealth and success are a sign of God's approval and favor. He's successful therefore he must be godly and all the crassness must just be an act because God wouldn't reward him otherwise.

Largely it's probably because he says whatever he wants and they love what he says. He's openly racist, xenophobic, islamophobic, and the aggrieved poor whites lap it up. If you're too poor to look down on others then at least by being of a 'superior' religion or race you are therefore entitled to look down on everyone not like you.
They have the same sort of 'common sense' approach to government that don't understand that it's actually complicated and difficult business. Therefore when he blames the 'deep state' for everything he fails to do. Remeber this gem that essentially sums up all his difficulties in governing:

"Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he [Trump] added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/trump-health-care-complicated/index.html

[Montmorency]

Hmm, at this point I wonder if Trump has now inspired unprecedented public enmity from former security/military high-rankers. How strong was the tradition of their deference to POTUS/CINC?

https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/974978856997224448

When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you.

https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/974748724176941056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Reluctantly I have concluded that President Trump is a serious threat to US national security. He is refusing to protect vital US interests from active Russian attacks. It is apparent that he is for some unknown reason under the sway of Mr Putin.

[HopAlongBunny]

I think the Brennan quote (above) may go down as the summation of Trump's tenure.
While people in the Intelligence community and Military might defer to POTUS, I believe their oath demands loyalty to the Constitution.

The popcorn inducing question is also contained in that quote. Will America triumph?
Trump might be the least popular POTUS ever, but there is still a hardcore. The GOP seems willing to "ride this baby down" and get what they can, while they can.
Mid-terms? It could be very ugly indeed; voter restrictions, Russian manipulation, rigged voting hours/access ... etc.
It could turn out to be the fire that gets people to the polls, finally; will the polls be open?

[HopAlongBunny]

In a different vein: Is America handing the Middle East to Russia?
In the Pacific and in international forums, China is filling the vacuum that America is leaving.
Russia might be ready to do the same in the Middle East:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/16/the-middle-east-needs-a-steady-boyfriend/

It might just be an "infatuation", but just being around and attentive might be enough...

[Fragony]

As for the first, certainly seems that way, should you be unhappy about it it never did you any good

[Crandar]

Why should the average American care about how aggressive or soft American policy towards Russia is? Why should he care if a couple of dictators and totalitarian emirs in the Middle East prefer Russia to the US? Why should he care if Russian investments in Jordan or Ukraine become more prominent, to the detriment of the interests of the American companies? Why should he care if a president in a random country which he cannot even locate is a puppet of Putin, instead of Donald?

All this nationalistic narrative that citizens should be worried and make sacrifices for the sake of the American foreign policy and the need of some lobbyists to increase their profits is stupid. The tears of the warmongering military establishment are what encouraged many pacifists to abstain from the elections and what convinced many desperate workers that a billionaire is actually the voice of the people and the terror of the elites.
Do they still fail to realize that they should shut up. The voters who automatically get hysterical, when they hear some good old McCarthyist rhetoric will vote for the Republicans anyway, because they consider anybody to the left of Ted Cruz as a Commie ready to confiscate their weapons.

[Gilrandir]

Why should the average American care about how aggressive or soft American policy towards Russia is? Why should he care if a couple of dictators and totalitarian emirs in the Middle East prefer Russia to the US? Why should he care if Russian investments in Jordan or Ukraine become more prominent, to the detriment of the interests of the American companies? Why should he care if a president in a random country which he cannot even locate is a puppet of Putin, instead of Donald?

All this nationalistic narrative that citizens should be worried and make sacrifices for the sake of the American foreign policy and the need of some lobbyists to increase their profits is stupid. The tears of the warmongering military establishment are what encouraged many pacifists to abstain from the elections and what convinced many desperate workers that a billionaire is actually the voice of the people and the terror of the elites.
Do they still fail to realize that they should shut up. The voters who automatically get hysterical, when they hear some good old McCarthyist rhetoric will vote for the Republicans anyway, because they consider anybody to the left of Ted Cruz as a Commie ready to confiscate their weapons.

In a word, why die for Danzig.

[Crandar]

In a word, why die for Danzig.
Sorry bro, Putler memes don't work in the civilized world. Alternatively, why die for Ferdie?

[Gilrandir]

Sorry bro, Putler memes don't work in the civilized world. Alternatively, why die for Ferdie?

I thought it was a Hitler meme.

[Montmorency]

Why should the average American care about how aggressive or soft American policy towards Russia is? Why should he care if a couple of dictators and totalitarian emirs in the Middle East prefer Russia to the US? Why should he care if Russian investments in Jordan or Ukraine become more prominent, to the detriment of the interests of the American companies? Why should he care if a president in a random country which he cannot even locate is a puppet of Putin, instead of Donald?

All this nationalistic narrative that citizens should be worried and make sacrifices for the sake of the American foreign policy and the need of some lobbyists to increase their profits is stupid. The tears of the warmongering military establishment are what encouraged many pacifists to abstain from the elections and what convinced many desperate workers that a billionaire is actually the voice of the people and the terror of the elites.
Do they still fail to realize that they should shut up. The voters who automatically get hysterical, when they hear some good old McCarthyist rhetoric will vote for the Republicans anyway, because they consider anybody to the left of Ted Cruz as a Commie ready to confiscate their weapons.

The average American (or citizen of another country) arguably shouldn't need to care about any foreign policy, to function as citizens.

But I hear what you're saying. It's not good for people to identify their own success with the success of American military might or imperialism. But it's harder to deploy that argument when it comes to self-defense on the home front, and in Western Europe. We could withdraw completely from every single Muslim country and Russia would still be an adversary.

And Trump is an adversary of America. And it matters if former security/military leadership criticize him in this way, because in a circuitous syllogism it does undermine civilian leadership of the military, which model is likely better for most people on Earth than the alternative.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Speaking of which...

Seamus Fermanagh

Here's the father of my current governor speechifying in the 80s about "Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective" (http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm).

I thought JFK's discussion at the Greater Houston Ministerial was pithier, though in much the same vein.

I often disagreed with Mario Cuomo. I never considered him an enemy. Among Demos of that era, I think he'd have made a better President than Carter, Mondale, or Ted Kennedy.

[spmetla]

In a different vein: Is America handing the Middle East to Russia?
In the Pacific and in international forums, China is filling the vacuum that America is leaving.
Russia might be ready to do the same in the Middle East:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/16/the-middle-east-needs-a-steady-boyfriend/

It might just be an "infatuation", but just being around and attentive might be enough...

America is certainly ceding its clout to the regional players, mainly Iran and Saudi-Arabia. Ceding it to Russia? I'd say not so much, they've always been friends of the current Syrian Regime. Iran is willing to work with Russia but there is no mutual trust between the two, more just the shared goals against the US in Iraq and Syria.
Turkey seeing the above trend between Iran and Saudi-Arabia is trying to create it's own sphere and be seen as a regional leader again, especially for the Mediterranean Muslim countries. This vie for influence on their part while a NATO power allows them to stick their tongue out much farther because we (the US) need them sorely. Without them we'd only have a footprint in the gulf and cyprus (if the UK were to allow it)short of committing the 6th Fleet to something.
So long as the US remains committed to Israel, Egypt, and Saudi-Arabia it will have a lot of clout in the region though the fickleness of our foreign policy has been brought to light and will undermine any and all treaties not made into law by Congress.
The Soviet Union was a major player in the middle east for a long long time which is why the region has so much Russian hardware around (Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia). Russia can't project power quite like the US but they are far more willing to send advisers and equipment (not just crap outdated 'monkey' versions either) which is something the US and other Western arms suppliers are seen as unreliable with (France exocet missiles in Falklands, German Leopards used by the Turks).

China is definitely filling a vacuum but that is also pushing many potential/historical rivals toward each other (India, Australia, Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan). The US needs to be the unifying force for these nations which sadly our shortsighted policies have failed at over the past two decades.
This is why personally I think that in the next few years China will persue a more confrontational policy and try to get into a Russo-Japanese type of limited conflict with the US to bloody our nose enough to cause us to withdraw from the region or at the least call our loyalty to our allies to be in doubt (say a war over the South China Sea atolls with the Philippines or Vietnam or cause us to sit on the sidelines while they bring in Taiwan).

[a completely inoffensive name]

I would say the TPP already shows that Oceania/east Asian countries are willing to work together without the US to protect their shared interests.

China has claims (or will eventually) against almost every country around it and I think Chinese hegemony in the face of US withdrawal is likely not to be as loose and rewarding as the status quo. Only complete abandonment

My question for those who talk about China usurping the US in the region is this: Are we so sure of China's ability to conduct itself as a superpower? During our brief reign of 'Pax Americana', the world has seen convincing examples that military might is not the end all be all to overcoming foreign policy issues. The longer China delays the more Taiwanese independence grows likely. Democracy is now a given for the younger Taiwanese coming of age over there and they are active and they have influenced recent elections (if only my own country's youth could do the same...). Culturally, they are exposed to more than what is allowed on the mainland and will continue to drift away from the mainland as cultural influences blend and take hold over time. These are issues that only prolonged, successful, and sophisticated soft power from the Chinese could reverse without bloodshed. I mean, if we are truly at a position where we 'sit on the sidelines' and abandon Taiwan to same fate as Hong Kong (won't be long until China completely converts it into a puppet government, suppressing all dissenting politicians from campaigning, let alone take office) then why bother keep the charade going. Fucking take away the 500 billion from the military and leave just enough to maintain enough nukes to destroy the planet and go back to being our own isolationist experiment.

[Hooahguy]

Its like hes a cartoon character or something (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/379428-trump-congratulated-putin-after-his-national-security-team-told-him).


President Trump congratulated his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on his reelection victory despite his national security advisers warning him specifically not to do so, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

Trump’s national security team had told Trump not to congratulate Putin on winning a fourth term during a phone call on Tuesday, even placing a section in his briefing materials that read “DO NOT CONGRATULATE” in all-capital letters, according to the Post.


However, Trump did congratulate Putin during the call.

[Fragony]

Why shouldn't he congratulate Putin, that's normal. America only benefit from having better relations with the Kremlin. Wouldn't 'Trump refuses to congratulate Putin' look a whole lot worse, unnecesary provocation MSM would scream, making it bigger than it needs to be. If you can't do any good anyway do what's smart

[rory_20_uk]

If you pretend to follow the Rule of Law, then not slapping dictators on the back is generally a good idea. The USA purports to to this, the President appears to do quite the opposite.

When the President fails to uphold the values of the country they should be removed. But of course the country is too sick for this to happen.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

As silly as this appeared at first, Fragony has a point:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oVZjlSPFQU

Things like this are more or less on the same level:
https://aledeh.com/vladimir-putin-congratulates-chinas-xi-jinping-for-securing-presidency/


In a telephone conversation, German Chancellor Angela Merkel congratulated Xi Jinping on being elected Chinese president.

http://tass.com/world/995095


German Chancellor Angela Merkel has congratulated Russian President Vladimir Putin on his victory at Sunday’s presidential polls and expressed the hope for further constructive cooperation, the press service of the German cabinet of ministers said on Monday.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-congratulates-putin-refrains-from-criticizing-russian-elections/


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated newly re-elected Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, hailing the two leaders’ “trust and understanding,” but refraining from criticizing the election process, as many in Europe have done.

“Mr. President, please accept my sincere congratulations for your victory in yesterday’s elections,” Netanyahu wrote in a letter sent to Putin, his office said.

More info here as well: http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/57091

Japan and Italy are listed as well for example.

And Duterte: http://bworldonline.com/duterte-congratulates-putin-on-reelection/

Aaaaand Macron: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-03/19/c_137050771.htm


PARIS, March 19 (Xinhua) -- French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday wished Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin success in modernizing Russia, noting that it is essential to maintain ties and "constructive dialogue" with Russia despite differences.

"In the name of France, the French president offered Russia and the Russian people his wishes for success with the modernization of the country on the political, democratic, economic and social fronts," Macron's office said in a statement.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As silly as this appeared at first, Fragony has a point:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oVZjlSPFQU

Things like this are more or less on the same level:
https://aledeh.com/vladimir-putin-congratulates-chinas-xi-jinping-for-securing-presidency/



http://tass.com/world/995095



https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-congratulates-putin-refrains-from-criticizing-russian-elections/



More info here as well: http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/57091

Japan and Italy are listed as well for example.

And Duterte: http://bworldonline.com/duterte-congratulates-putin-on-reelection/

Aaaaand Macron: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-03/19/c_137050771.htm

Husar, you need to stop trying to use your intelligence here. The basic mantra is: Trump is evil and can do no right. If you start your thinking from this 'given,' inconsistencies like other world leaders acting in like manner can be blithely ignored. If you keep using your wits, you will NEVER make it as a US mainstream media journalist.

[Sarmatian]

Well, people who make a big deal out of this are actually helping Trump in the long run.

[Husar]

Husar, you need to stop trying to use your intelligence here. The basic mantra is: Trump is evil and can do no right. If you start your thinking from this 'given,' inconsistencies like other world leaders acting in like manner can be blithely ignored. If you keep using your wits, you will NEVER make it as a US mainstream media journalist.

Well, even though his behavior is not entirely unusual, one could say it is weird that he ignored the very strong advice from his advisors. After all he keeps saying that he knows the best people and has the best advisors, and then he constantly ignores them...
That's kinda like saying you need that AR-15 to oppose the government, but then you never start that civil war 4 realzies. :sweatdrop:

[rory_20_uk]

Well, even though his behavior is not entirely unusual, one could say it is weird that he ignored the very strong advice from his advisors. After all he keeps saying that he knows the best people and has the best advisors, and then he constantly ignores them...
That's kinda like saying you need that AR-15 to oppose the government, but then you never start that civil war 4 realzies. :sweatdrop:

To point out the obvious, he is a narcissist. He wants the best people around him to make him look good - not to say or do anything. They are his trophies as much as his wife is and as much as being President is.

So, for him to be publicly told to do something he almost has to do the opposite lest he appears "weak" and not the centre of the story.

Yes, it is only something a very ignorant, weak person would do - but equally someone with these traits lacks the insight into themselves to realise this.

~:smoking:

[HopAlongBunny]

Is Cambridge Analytica's hook-up with Facebook going to push Facebook to 'fes up to the fact they are a data mining network, not a social network?

[Montmorency]

Is Cambridge Analytica's hook-up with Facebook going to push Facebook to 'fes up to the fact they are a data mining network, not a social network?

Facebook

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Seattle_-_Curiosity_Shop_shrunken_heads_01.jpg

[Hooahguy]

Well, even though his behavior is not entirely unusual, one could say it is weird that he ignored the very strong advice from his advisors. After all he keeps saying that he knows the best people and has the best advisors, and then he constantly ignores them...
That's kinda like saying you need that AR-15 to oppose the government, but then you never start that civil war 4 realzies. :sweatdrop:
Exactly. Personally, I dont mind so much that he congratulated Putin. Its the hilarity of his advisors telling him explicitly not to and then him doing it anyways which greatly amuses me.

[HopAlongBunny]

Exactly. Personally, I dont mind so much that he congratulated Putin. Its the hilarity of his advisors telling him explicitly not to and then him doing it anyways which greatly amuses me.

I think rory 20 uk said it all:

They are his trophies as much as his wife is and as much as being President is.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Exactly. Personally, I dont mind so much that he congratulated Putin. Its the hilarity of his advisors telling him explicitly not to and then him doing it anyways which greatly amuses me.

He wants Putin across the table, mano-a-mano, where he knows he can negotiate effectively with anyone. :rolleyes:

[Fragony]

Exactly. Personally, I dont mind so much that he congratulated Putin. Its the hilarity of his advisors telling him explicitly not to and then him doing it anyways which greatly amuses me.

Do you always listen to people who give you advice?

[Gilrandir]

Do you always listen to people who give you advice?

If you personally choose them and hire them you are supposed to. Otherwise why did you hire them?

[Fragony]

If you personally choose them and hire them you are supposed to. Otherwise why did you hire them?

To advice you. And they gave poor advice. Not congratulating Putin is simply not recognising his government, very bad advice, Trump did the right thing doing it

[rory_20_uk]

Talking to him is recognising his government. Not congratulating him is implicitly demonstrating that the elections were dodgy.

You see, diplomacy often is dealing with subtlety and conveying meaning in different ways with different audiences. This is why often experienced, subtle individuals are chosen for this, not brash morons with cognitive decline.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

If election weren't dodgy they wouldn't exist anymore

[Gilrandir]

To advice you. And they gave poor advice. Not congratulating Putin is simply not recognising his government, very bad advice, Trump did the right thing doing it

Then it is your fault. YOU chose and hired people to give you advice. If they ALL give the same advice and you don't follow it - well, either you chose the people that are bad advisors (your fault) or you refuse to follow good advice of the best minds you chose out of the 250 mln people (again your fault).

[Husar]

If election weren't dodgy they wouldn't exist anymore

That's like saying "I don't need the spikes, if I weren't at this mid-level of the slippery slope, I'd be a splash of goo at the bottom..." and then sliding further downwards...

It would have been better if noone had congratulated him. At the very least it would somewhat undermine his supporters thinking that he commands respect all over the world and is therefore a suitable strong leader.

[Gilrandir]

It would have been better if noone had congratulated him. At the very least it would somewhat undermine his supporters thinking that he commands respect all over the world and is therefore a suitable strong leader.

For his supporters fear that he instills is more important than respect. There is a Russian proverb: "They fear me which means they respect me".

[Husar]

For his supporters fear that he instills is more important than respect. There is a Russian proverb: "They fear me which means they respect me".

This is the old crazy idea. I respect my friends more than my enemies and even if not, someone I fear I want to get rid of, someone I respect as a friends or as a good example I want to support.
The fear-based approach is merely the last option for those who fail with the other approach....losers holding on to a straw with force...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is the old crazy idea. I respect my friends more than my enemies and even if not, someone I fear I want to get rid of, someone I respect as a friends or as a good example I want to support.
The fear-based approach is merely the last option for those who fail with the other approach....losers holding on to a straw with force...

Even Machiavelli acknowledged it was better for a leader to be loved than feared.

The most stable political systems are so because the people "buy in" to the system enough to put up with its foibles for the greater long term stability, freedom, and advantages it begets. As has been written by wittier folk than I, truly effective governments derive "their just power from the consent of the governed."

Neither fear, nor affection, is the strongest and longest lasting approach to garnering that consent.

Sic transit Trump.

[Fragony]

That's like saying "I don't need the spikes, if I weren't at this mid-level of the slippery slope, I'd be a splash of goo at the bottom..." and then sliding further downwards...

It would have been better if noone had congratulated him. At the very least it would somewhat undermine his supporters thinking that he commands respect all over the world and is therefore a suitable strong leader.

Your body has a skin but there is a whole lot more going on

[spmetla]

To advice you. And they gave poor advice. Not congratulating Putin is simply not recognizing his government, very bad advice, Trump did the right thing doing it

Not congratulating him is simply that. It doesn't mean we don't recognize his government. If Trump were a 'normal' politician and this were actually part of some scheme to try and change Russian behavior or get concessions from them I'd be all for a policy of 'detente'. Putin however is escalating his actions and those deserve to be condemned. Congratulating his election without bringing up any of the sticky issues like chemical weapons being used in the territory of our closest ally then it's a very suspicious incident.

I truly to wonder what Putin has on Trump. Did he kill a hooker when he was in Russia, do something pedophilic? Perhaps some gender blurring sex acts? Trumps complete and utter devotion to Putin is absolutely perplexing, merely being indebted to Russian financing can't have created such loyalty.
He's seems to have only signed on to the recent and limited sanctions because Congress voted in such a majority that they'd override his veto.

[edyzmedieval]

McMaster is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/hr-mcmaster-trump-bolton.html

[Hooahguy]

$5 says we find ourselves in a war with North Korea or Iran by 2020. Bolton is as hawkish as hawkish gets.

[Montmorency]

McMaster is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/hr-mcmaster-trump-bolton.html

What is that, Operation Hummingbird concluding?

Had to say it. :creep:

[Strike For The South]

John Bolton is going to a lot of people killed. I can feel my ulcer forming.

[Gilrandir]

I truly to wonder what Putin has on Trump. Did he kill a hooker when he was in Russia, do something pedophilic? Perhaps some gender blurring sex acts? Trumps complete and utter devotion to Putin is absolutely perplexing, merely being indebted to Russian financing can't have created such loyalty.


Feels a kindred spirit in him. Both are bent on corroding norms and crossing red lines - Trump within his country, Putin - both within and without.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/opinion/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-turkey.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion

[Fragony]

Not congratulating him is simply that. It doesn't mean we don't recognize his government. If Trump were a 'normal' politician and this were actually part of some scheme to try and change Russian behavior or get concessions from them I'd be all for a policy of 'detente'. Putin however is escalating his actions and those deserve to be condemned. Congratulating his election without bringing up any of the sticky issues like chemical weapons being used in the territory of our closest ally then it's a very suspicious incident.

I truly to wonder what Putin has on Trump. Did he kill a hooker when he was in Russia, do something pedophilic? Perhaps some gender blurring sex acts? Trumps complete and utter devotion to Putin is absolutely perplexing, merely being indebted to Russian financing can't have created such loyalty.
He's seems to have only signed on to the recent and limited sanctions because Congress voted in such a majority that they'd override his veto.

All of that is possible of course, but it's also just common practise to congratulate. Not doing that is just much weirder. The msm is no friend of Trump, they would spin it out of control

[Sarmatian]

Even Machiavelli acknowledged it was better for a leader to be loved than feared.


Actually, it's the other way around. Better to be feared than loved, if you can't be both. Putin is pretty much both in Russia at this point.

[Fragony]

Actually, it's the other way around. Better to be feared than loved, if you can't be both. Putin is pretty much both in Russia at this point.

You are rrught, he went straight against the idea that a leader should be loved. It's more subtle than fear though. Machiavelli was an early political realist

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump has what he wants: a national security chief who doesn't bother with the details.
McMaster apparently bored Trump to death with all the little details that made bombing N.Korea and Iran bad ideas.
They may part company on Russia; Bolton is no fan of Putin; but Trump can stonewall on the Russia file 'til he gets his war.

[Gilrandir]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4FCuEaclA

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He probably wants a "Gulf One" hundred hours romp. Cannot find out where to make that happen though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can't we convince Raul to invade a Caribbean island with a medical school with second tier US med students? THAT would be the ticket...

[Shaka_Khan]

They may part company on Russia; Bolton is no fan of Putin; but Trump can stonewall on the Russia file 'til he gets his war.
Maybe Trump will fire Bolton if Bolton pushes him too far.

[Fragony]

Trump has what he wants: a national security chief who doesn't bother with the details.
McMaster apparently bored Trump to death with all the little details that made bombing N.Korea and Iran bad ideas.
They may part company on Russia; Bolton is no fan of Putin; but Trump can stonewall on the Russia file 'til he gets his war.

You could have been at war with Iran right now, do you really want that

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Maybe Trump will fire Bolton if Bolton pushes him too far.

Absolutely. They are both on the same page about Iran, but differ on any number of things.

[Fragony]

Looks like the Palestinian government lost it's free money. I totally agree with it, go Trump

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Looks like the Palestinian government lost it's free money. I totally agree with it, go Trump

I hear you. However, chopping off the monies will weaken Fatah further and do only limited harm Hamas. No decision vis-à-vis the Middle East comes without nasty little strings attached.

[Fragony]

I hear you. However, chopping off the monies will weaken Fatah further and do only limited harm Hamas. No decision vis-à-vis the Middle East comes without nasty little strings attached.

The Palestinians will always be a part of something that's much bigger, it's the ultimate ideoligical proxy-zone. I do feel sorry for them everybody is using them

[HopAlongBunny]

I do feel sorry for them everybody is using them

That is the story of the Middle East

[a completely inoffensive name]

Rumors out there that Ryan might not run for re-election.

BIG, if true.

[Montmorency]

Rumors out there that Ryan might not run for re-election.

BIG, if true.

Paul Ryan? I've heard it since December.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/14/paul-ryan-retire-speaker-ready-leave-washington-216103


Despite several landmark legislative wins this year, and a better-than-expected relationship with President Donald Trump, Ryan has made it known to some of his closest confidants that this will be his final term as speaker. He consults a small crew of family, friends and staff for career advice, and is always cautious not to telegraph his political maneuvers. But the expectation of his impending departure has escaped the hushed confines of Ryan’s inner circle and permeated the upper-most echelons of the GOP. In recent interviews with three dozen people who know the speaker—fellow lawmakers, congressional and administration aides, conservative intellectuals and Republican lobbyists—not a single person believed Ryan will stay in Congress past 2018.


More recently, over closely held conversations with his kitchen cabinet, Ryan’s preference has become clear: He would like to serve through Election Day 2018 and retire ahead of the next Congress. This would give Ryan a final legislative year to chase his second white whale, entitlement reform, while using his unrivaled fundraising prowess to help protect the House majority—all with the benefit of averting an ugly internecine power struggle during election season. Ryan has never loved the job; he oozes aggravation when discussing intraparty debates over “micro-tactics," and friends say he feels like he’s running a daycare center. On a personal level, going home at the end of next year would allow Ryan, who turns 48 next month, to keep promises to family; his three children are in or entering their teenage years, and Ryan, whose father died at 55, wants desperately to live at home with them full time before they begin flying the nest. The best part of this scenario, people close to the speaker emphasize: He wouldn’t have to share the ballot with Trump again in 2020.

Most recent news is denying (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-ryan-dismisses-resignation-rumors/) an impending resignation, which is a different matter.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Paul Ryan? I've heard it since December.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/14/paul-ryan-retire-speaker-ready-leave-washington-216103

huh, interesting. I guess we still have a while until June 1st when he is forced to play his hand.

[rory_20_uk]

Ryan probably should bow out. He's got the "success" of the tax code in the recent past and can leave on a high to some highly paid non-jobs as a sincere thank you from all the companies whose pockets he's helped line.

Being Donnie's bitch for a few more years is hardly edifying and there little to no chance he'll be listened to, and this will erode his reputation - more than sinking all his principles in working with Donnie in the first place.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Might be the wise choice. Trump thrives on turmoil, spur of the moment decisions, and endless "false" positions while he keeps everything in flux until he must. That cannot be easy to work with. And Ryan is much more planned in style.

Sets him back to private life with 5 years to decide about the Presidency (or sets him up to run in 18 months if Trump punts it for some reason). He is neither a Trump supporter in GOP eyes, nor unwilling to work with the TEA side of the house.

[Hooahguy]

Ryan probably should bow out. He's got the "success" of the tax code in the recent past and can leave on a high to some highly paid non-jobs as a sincere thank you from all the companies whose pockets he's helped line.

Being Donnie's bitch for a few more years is hardly edifying and there little to no chance he'll be listened to, and this will erode his reputation - more than sinking all his principles in working with Donnie in the first place.

~:smoking:
Plus it would save any embarrassment should he be defeated in November. Which is an actual possibility.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Plus it would save any embarrassment should he be defeated in November. Which is an actual possibility.

Paul "P90-X" Ryan already embarrassed himself beyond all measures when he started touting 'muscle confusion' workouts and claiming he ran a marathon in three hours.

This is a lame reason to shit on him, but it needs to be said. The only party worse than the 'muscle confusion' party to me are the crazies who think real workouts need to mimic what cavemen did 10,000 years ago like lifting boulders and throwing tree logs. Those people are worse than libertarians.

[Strike For The South]

Paul "P90-X" Ryan already embarrassed himself beyond all measures when he started touting 'muscle confusion' workouts and claiming he ran a marathon in three hours.

This is a lame reason to shit on him, but it needs to be said. The only party worse than the 'muscle confusion' party to me are the crazies who think real workouts need to mimic what cavemen did 10,000 years ago like lifting boulders and throwing tree logs. Those people are worse than libertarians.

Fight me IRL

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fight me IRL

But for gosh sakes give us a few days do get down bets.

[HopAlongBunny]

Slap on the wrist for lying to special counsel.
Yea! Quiver in fear all ye who would seek to divert Justice from its inevitable course!
30 days in prison and a $20,000 fine:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/03/599169065/dutch-lawyer-to-be-jailed-and-fined-is-first-sentenced-in-mueller-probe

The actual record may have more impact than the sentence. I'm not sure what the professional consequences are for a lawyer with a criminal record...

[rory_20_uk]

Slap on the wrist for lying to special counsel.
Yea! Quiver in fear all ye who would seek to divert Justice from its inevitable course!
30 days in prison and a $20,000 fine:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/03/599169065/dutch-lawyer-to-be-jailed-and-fined-is-first-sentenced-in-mueller-probe

The actual record may have more impact than the sentence. I'm not sure what the professional consequences are for a lawyer with a criminal record...

It starts with no job. But since dad-in-law is a billionaire I don't think it really matters too much.

~:smoking:

[Shaka_Khan]

Half of Trump's actions make sense if you accept Putin as the real leader of the USA.

[Strike For The South]

Half of Trump's actions make sense if you accept Putin as the real leader of the USA.

No they don't.

[Shaka_Khan]

No they don't.
Yes they do.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think the Trump thread has reached it's ultimate level of argumentation...

[Montmorency]

If Trump were directly acting on orders from Putin on a day-to-day basis, we would either already be much farther along into despotism than we currently are, or Trump would have been deposed.

Half of what Trump does makes sense if you accept him as the perfect Republican.

[Shaka_Khan]

If Trump were directly acting on orders from Putin on a day-to-day basis, we would either already be much farther along into despotism than we currently are, or Trump would have been deposed.

Half of what Trump does makes sense if you accept him as the perfect Republican.
Putin wouldn't want Trump to get deposed. Putin wants to continue to use him. One way to achieve this is to make it not too obvious.

[Fragony]

Putin wouldn't want Trump to get deposed. Putin wants to continue to use him. One way to achieve this is to make it not too obvious.

Putin is hardly the chessmaster, he gets too much credit. China is much more dangerous for Russia than the west.

[rory_20_uk]

Putin wouldn't want Trump to get deposed. Putin wants to continue to use him. One way to achieve this is to make it not too obvious.

Trump is taking the USA in a rather isolationist direction and damaging relationships all around the globe by doing things that other countries just didn't think the USA would do - and once it happens under one president it might happen again.

I'm not sure what more Putin would realistically expect in just over a year.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If Trump were directly acting on orders from Putin on a day-to-day basis, we would either already be much farther along into despotism than we currently are, or Trump would have been deposed.

Half of what Trump does makes sense if you accept him as the perfect Republican.

Fair point. He is about half Republican. In both senses.

[Husar]

It's perfectly sufficient for Putin to have given him a little edge to win the elections by spreading all those fake news.
Trump is probably stupid enough to cause the rest of the chaos all by himself.

In the Skripal case everybody already expelled diplomats while scientists say they can't prove the chemical agent came from Russia.

As dictatorial as Putin may be, what happened to due process and all our other ideals? Did we gaze into the abyss for too long?
Is it time for Germany to go fascist again and start another World War?

[Fragony]

The spreading of fake news is fake news, it is being done all the time. There are some forces that are trying to get us into conflict with Russia and use Russia as an excuse for our own flaws. They don't deserve that. The west should stop slowly creeping up on Russia of course they don't like that, the west is a dealbreaker in every way

[rory_20_uk]

The spreading of fake news is fake news, it is being done all the time. There are some forces that are trying to get us into conflict with Russia and use Russia as an excuse for our own flaws. They don't deserve that. The west should stop slowly creeping up on Russia of course they don't like that, the west is a dealbreaker in every way

Propaganda has been around for practically ever. Generally against the enemies of the state. And Russia has fitted this category for a long time.

Russia should control all lands nearby. Why? Because the Russian way of doing things has an innate right to continue? All the countries near Russia should be forced to do what Russia wants it that way? I don't think we are likely to be amiable with Russia for some time to come. The West never has been since we have had contact with them. Like China their way of doing things is not really compatible.


It's perfectly sufficient for Putin to have given him a little edge to win the elections by spreading all those fake news.
Trump is probably stupid enough to cause the rest of the chaos all by himself.

In the Skripal case everybody already expelled diplomats while scientists say they can't prove the chemical agent came from Russia.

As dictatorial as Putin may be, what happened to due process and all our other ideals? Did we gaze into the abyss for too long?
Is it time for Germany to go fascist again and start another World War?

Espionage hardly works to the criminal standard of law. We do not have, and will not have for decades, what additional intelligence was provided to other countries for them to make the decision. Did, on the balance of probabilities, the Russians do it? Yes, probably. Like the other assassinations of defectors on UK soil.

Due process is and always has been an ideal as opposed to something countries follow all the time. It would be very difficult for it to be any other way.

Given France, Britain and the USA are not currently trying to bankrupt Germany and the USSR is not trying to subvert Germany I hope that there is no need for Fascism at this point in time.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Espionage hardly works to the criminal standard of law. We do not have, and will not have for decades, what additional intelligence was provided to other countries for them to make the decision. Did, on the balance of probabilities, the Russians do it? Yes, probably. Like the other assassinations of defectors on UK soil.

Due process is and always has been an ideal as opposed to something countries follow all the time. It would be very difficult for it to be any other way.

Given France, Britain and the USA are not currently trying to bankrupt Germany and the USSR is not trying to subvert Germany I hope that there is no need for Fascism at this point in time.

~:smoking:

I agree that it looks like the Russian MO, but that raises some questions for me:

1. Doesn't that also make it easy to frame them? Some say for example that this is also a nice distraction for May, who keeps failing in the Brexit negotiations.

2. The evidence for WMDs was also available to everyone in 2003 and it still turned out to be fake, so can these secret agencies really be trusted, especially when scientists openly say they can't trace it to Russia (or anyone)? Apparently they can be manipulated for or blinded by political goals.

3. Exactly, the known MO, why is the response so strong now given that Russia has done this before and I don't recall the enormous outrage and expelling of diplomats in the other cases?

4. I also read that the guy was previously jailed for high treason in Russia (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43291394t), so why would they kill him now in the UK if they could have done it long ago and much more quietly in Russia?

[rory_20_uk]

I agree that it looks like the Russian MO, but that raises some questions for me:

1. Doesn't that also make it easy to frame them? Some say for example that this is also a nice distraction for May, who keeps failing in the Brexit negotiations.

2. The evidence for WMDs was also available to everyone in 2003 and it still turned out to be fake, so can these secret agencies really be trusted, especially when scientists openly say they can't trace it to Russia (or anyone)? Apparently they can be manipulated for or blinded by political goals.

3. Exactly, the known MO, why is the response so strong now given that Russia has done this before and I don't recall the enormous outrage and expelling of diplomats in the other cases?

4. I also read that the guy was previously jailed for high treason in Russia (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43291394t), so why would they kill him now in the UK if they could have done it long ago and much more quietly in Russia?

1. True. Rather cold blooded and given nothing like this was done in far bleaker times it makes it seem unlikely. Russia almost certainly killed the other spy with polonium. Even when at war with Argentina the war was fought around the islands and not elsewhere. It would also be a massive gamble since how was May to know the EU / USA etc would back her and not ignore the little island and its little problem? Franky, why on earth would they support her?

2. No, the intelligence was fine - i.e. made no conclusions of any sort and it was that piece of shit Tony that lied with his dodgy dossier. Bush was spoiling for a fight after Saddam made his daddy look bad.

3. Things are often overlooked when the two sides are trying to make nice: Germany / Poland etc needed Russian gas not so long ago. Principles are scant solace when one is freezing. Things have changed and the world is awash with cheap gas from fracking making the USA an exporter not an importer. Russian gas can be replaced.

4. I've no idea. I would speculate that Putin expected this to destabilise the UK / EU / USA rather than get all three (with others) to do the same thing. Most commentators appear to agree that Putin really fumbled this one - seeming to unite a lot of the world for offing some washed up spook.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I agree that it looks like the Russian MO, but that raises some questions for me:

1. Doesn't that also make it easy to frame them? Some say for example that this is also a nice distraction for May, who keeps failing in the Brexit negotiations.

2. The evidence for WMDs was also available to everyone in 2003 and it still turned out to be fake, so can these secret agencies really be trusted, especially when scientists openly say they can't trace it to Russia (or anyone)? Apparently they can be manipulated for or blinded by political goals.

3. Exactly, the known MO, why is the response so strong now given that Russia has done this before and I don't recall the enormous outrage and expelling of diplomats in the other cases?

4. I also read that the guy was previously jailed for high treason in Russia (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43291394t), so why would they kill him now in the UK if they could have done it long ago and much more quietly in Russia?

The evidence in 2003 wasn't convincing even at the time, except to politicians who gain from tubthumping. It was clear at the time that Britain entered the war to follow the US, with anything else a distant second. Whatever dodgy dossier was just a facade of an excuse behind the real reason, to follow Bush and hoping to have some degree of influence over what happens next.

[Strike For The South]

Yes they do.

Trump makes sense if you accept the fact he has no idea what he is doing and has no desire to learn.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump makes sense if you accept the fact he has no idea what he is doing and has no desire to learn.

From Trump's perspective, that probably comes out as:

"I've demonstrated that I know what I am doing better than any of the rest of those chumps, so why should I waste my time trying to learn from them?"

[Gilrandir]

4. I also read that the guy was previously jailed for high treason in Russia (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43291394t), so why would they kill him now in the UK if they could have done it long ago and much more quietly in Russia?

As an element of scare tactics - "look what would happen to anyone who would try to defect to the other side. It doesn't matter where they might have fled the sacrosant retaliation will find them anywhere."

[Husar]

As an element of scare tactics - "look what would happen to anyone who would try to defect to the other side. It doesn't matter where they might have fled the sacrosant retaliation will find them anywhere."

Well if it's a scare tactic, then Russia obviously doesn't care about the fallout it gets and we might as well keep the diplomats here. Empty gestures? :shrug:

[Shaka_Khan]

Trump makes sense if you accept the fact he has no idea what he is doing and has no desire to learn.
I don't deny that. And I'm sure that Putin isn't complaining about it. However, Trump seems to satisfy Putin with matters that Putin really cares about.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well if it's a scare tactic, then Russia obviously doesn't care about the fallout it gets and we might as well keep the diplomats here. Empty gestures? :shrug:

If all that happens is a few dozen PNGs then Russia won't really care, nor should it. As far as I can tell, the ONLY thing that has Putin and company upset is that they didn't predict the West would do the PNG thing in as coordinated a fashion as they did and without telegraphing it as much as usual.

[Gilrandir]

Well if it's a scare tactic, then Russia obviously doesn't care about the fallout it gets and we might as well keep the diplomats here. Empty gestures? :shrug:

It doesn't matter why Russia poisoned the Skripals (btw, "skripal" is a Ukrainian name signifying "violinist"). What matters is that chemical weapons were used by another country to kill YOUR people on YOUR territory.

[Husar]

It doesn't matter why Russia poisoned the Skripals (btw, "skripal" is a Ukrainian name signifying "violinist"). What matters is that chemical weapons were used by another country to kill YOUR people on YOUR territory.

Yeah, well, I'mnot British and they're leaving the EU, they don't want to be my people.
That aside, you're right, you basically have to do a striptease to get on a plane and despite all these measures and the existence of counter esqionage, somehow the Russians seem to feel right at home in the UK, killing people left and right and buying half the country (other half is bought by arab oil sheikhs apparently).

I'm just glad this will be happening outside the EU soon...

[Gilrandir]

Yeah, well, I'mnot British and they're leaving the EU, they don't want to be my people.

I didn't mean you personally, impersonal "one" would have suited better, but it didn't seem so emphatic as "you".



you basically have to do a striptease to get on a plane...

That was because you had a woman guard at the airport. ~;)



I'm just glad this will be happening outside the EU soon...

There's no guarantee. It may happen anywhere, having pushed Britain out won't solve the problem.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc8LiAUm5Gk

[HopAlongBunny]

It is not a good sign when your lawyers office is raided by the FBI.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cohen-raid/fbi-raids-offices-home-of-trumps-personal-lawyer-source-idUSKBN1HG336

Among the items seized were apparently confidential client/lawyer documents.
While Cohen and his lawyer think that's a bit much, it could be justified if any of that material was used to commit or obscure a crime...

[Hooahguy]

I read somewhere that this raid wasnt under the purview of Mueller (even if he might have a big hand in this) but under New York state law enforcement. This is so if Trump fires Mueller, the information obtained in this raid would be safe from Trump.

[drone]

My understanding is that Mueller referred this to the NY southern district attorney's office, so it's not under the special investigation's scope (just an added bonus from turning over the rocks), but it's still federal. The FBI did the raid, and Rosenstein signed off on the warrant process. I'm sure NY state attorneys are interested though...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I read somewhere that this raid wasnt under the purview of Mueller (even if he might have a big hand in this) but under New York state law enforcement. This is so if Trump fires Mueller, the information obtained in this raid would be safe from Trump.

I do not believe that evidence would disappear were Trump to fire Mueller. Not the way the system is set up.

[drone]

Paul Ryan is a :daisy: coward. Won't stand up to Trump regardless of how unhinged he gets, and now won't face the consequences of his legislative "agenda". I didn't think Pelosi's feebleness would be outdone so soon by a Speaker, but how wrong I was. When he comes back in for the 2024 presidential campaign he will get laughed off the stage (if the GOP still exists at that point).

[rory_20_uk]

Paul Ryan is a :daisy: coward. Won't stand up to Trump regardless of how unhinged he gets, and now won't face the consequences of his legislative "agenda". I didn't think Pelosi's feebleness would be outdone so soon by a Speaker, but how wrong I was. When he comes back in for the 2024 presidential campaign he will get laughed off the stage (if the GOP still exists at that point).

Coward? He is a self-serving politician. He is staying around until he meets the minimum requirement to have all 3 years of being the Speaker work out his pension for his 20 years of "service" then will be off earning more money from being NEDs on the very company he's helped with the tax decrease.

I find it amazing how much hope people attach to a politician as though the next one will somehow magically be the one to selflessly fight for all the issues that they want.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Coward? He is a self-serving politician. He is staying around until he meets the minimum requirement to have all 3 years of being the Speaker work out his pension for his 20 years of "service" then will be off earning more money from being NEDs on the very company he's helped with the tax decrease.

I find it amazing how much hope people attach to a politician as though the next one will somehow magically be the one to selflessly fight for all the issues that they want.

~:smoking:

Ryan got the first tax reform bill since Reagan through the Congress and did so by dragging Trump along and keeping the reactionary wing of the GOP under check. What more of a mark could he make as Speaker (especially having to work with THIS President) than that? It is not as though Gingrich, Hastert, or Boehner accomplished anything more significant or of greater appeal to GOP voters.

If he bows out now he has options politically and otherwise. If he remains, he is tied to the current administration. If Trump suddenly becomes a President of legend (cannot calculate the odds against that, cannot count that high) then Ryan is done politically. As an outsider, presuming Trump does not become a legendary President, Ryan has options.

[Sarmatian]

He can make a comeback a few years down the road, if he so chooses. Paul Ryan to the rescue!

In fact, this can just be a possible set up for his presidential nomination in 7 years.

[Husar]

Paul Ryan is a :daisy: coward. Won't stand up to Trump regardless of how unhinged he gets, and now won't face the consequences of his legislative "agenda". I didn't think Pelosi's feebleness would be outdone so soon by a Speaker, but how wrong I was. When he comes back in for the 2024 presidential campaign he will get laughed off the stage (if the GOP still exists at that point).


Coward? He is a self-serving politician. He is staying around until he meets the minimum requirement to have all 3 years of being the Speaker work out his pension for his 20 years of "service" then will be off earning more money from being NEDs on the very company he's helped with the tax decrease.

I find it amazing how much hope people attach to a politician as though the next one will somehow magically be the one to selflessly fight for all the issues that they want.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJHP5pwfxzI

[drone]

I find it amazing how much hope people attach to a politician as though the next one will somehow magically be the one to selflessly fight for all the issues that they want.
I think you have mistaken me for someone who actually believed Ryan's BS about fiscal responsibility, I never had much hope for the man in the first place. But for someone who railed against the overpowered executive, he acted like a freshman rep in one of the most powerful positions in the country.


Ryan got the first tax reform bill since Reagan through the Congress and did so by dragging Trump along and keeping the reactionary wing of the GOP under check. What more of a mark could he make as Speaker (especially having to work with THIS President) than that? It is not as though Gingrich, Hastert, or Boehner accomplished anything more significant or of greater appeal to GOP voters.
He got a tax cut, not a reform. Tip O'Neill got a tax reform bill passed, Ryan just raided the treasury.

[rory_20_uk]

Ryan got the first tax reform bill since Reagan through the Congress and did so by dragging Trump along and keeping the reactionary wing of the GOP under check. What more of a mark could he make as Speaker (especially having to work with THIS President) than that? It is not as though Gingrich, Hastert, or Boehner accomplished anything more significant or of greater appeal to GOP voters.

If he bows out now he has options politically and otherwise. If he remains, he is tied to the current administration. If Trump suddenly becomes a President of legend (cannot calculate the odds against that, cannot count that high) then Ryan is done politically. As an outsider, presuming Trump does not become a legendary President, Ryan has options.

Dragged Trump along to give himself a massive tax cut to his personal empire? Tough journey I'm sure! Was A Republican Congress and President ever not going to award themselves a massive tax cut?

Yes, he's got options - and the ability to make probably millions in the meantime.


I think you have mistaken me for someone who actually believed Ryan's BS about fiscal responsibility, I never had much hope for the man in the first place. But for someone who railed against the overpowered executive, he acted like a freshman rep in one of the most powerful positions in the country.

Fair enough.

~:smoking:

[HopAlongBunny]

Cohen never went to Prague; that's his story and he's stickin' to it.
The Steele Dossier makes the accusation and it seems the assertion might have backing.
The Prague visit has something to do with meeting Russians and shady dealings (perhaps to the benefit of Trump) If it happened it could leave a mark, so to speak:

https://wonkette.com/632560/hey-michael-cohen-show-us-that-fuckin-passport-again

If the cats out of the bag, he's a fool to continue denying the trip.
The story is one that we'll have to wait for everyone to "show their work":

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17236660/michael-cohen-prague-trump-steele-dossier

[drone]

Hannity. :laugh4: Please, please, please let there be something he would have needed a "lawyer" like Cohen for...

[Hooahguy]

I've been reading Comey's new book and enjoying it greatly. The man has a very interesting life story, plus a healthy amount of sass:


pg.87

I sympathized with him and told him so, but added that the 2001 opinion was so bad as to be "facially invalid." I said, "No lawyer could rely upon it."

From the windowsill came Addington's cutting voice: "I'm a lawyer and I did."

I didn't break eye contact with the vice president [Cheney]. "No good layer," I added.

[Montmorency]

His Trump memos (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4442900-Ex-FBI-Director-James-Comey-s-memos.html).

TLDR

[HopAlongBunny]

While Trump's circus is interesting to watch, more important is the bill this administration will leave behind:

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/04/the-trump-administration-wants-to-make-groundwater-less-safe-in-coal-country/

The regulatory rollback will take along time to fix. Even worse, the effects on water, air and soil will require decades of recovery and clean-up.
Who will pay? Rarely the polluters, more often the gov't ie: the taxpayer. Even if dumping coal sludge doesn't harm you directly, you will end up paying for the clean-up.
All that sweet money generated from the "right to pollute"? As usual the bulk of it will go to a small number of people.
Hurray for the free-market! (?)

[HopAlongBunny]

In addition, we might ask "What's to come?"
In this vein, how prepared is the ballot system (counting and reporting) for the attack that's coming?
Not very:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610774/heres-how-hackers-could-cause-chaos-in-this-years-us-midterm-election/

Replacing machines and operating systems is expensive and time consuming. Good thing the USA has been focused with laser-like attention on this problem! :laugh4:
Usually, "it ain't a problem 'til it actually happens"; this time: "recognizing the problem might jeopardize the feelings of the current President, so we'll let it slide..."
Good luck in 2018.

[Montmorency]

The Tragedy of James Comey (https://impeachableoffenses.net/2018/04/22/the-tragedy-of-james-comey/)


Trump and Comey are polar opposites in virtue. But they are doppelgangers of ego. Neither can bear that the world might see him other than as he sees himself. As loathsome as Trump may seem to him, Jim Comey needs to understand that he, too, is hurting the Republic.


Young lawyers become prosecutors because they want to be the good guys ... Young prosecutors who make it a career begin to see themselves as members of a kind of warrior priesthood, paladins of light in an ethically murky and sometimes blackly malign world.


As a federal prosecutor, you are empowered to hunt those suspected of crime, but you are obligated to wield the immense resources at your disposal with restraint and in strict accordance with the rules. You are granted many tools to unearth evidence, but you must analyze what you find dispassionately. While an investigation is ongoing, you may not speak about its details publicly, no matter how high-profile the target and how intense the interest of the public, the press, or elected politicians.

You are commissioned to prosecute the guilty, but may not ethically subject anyone, however dodgy you personally may think them, to the risk of criminal conviction unless you believe the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if at the close of an investigation you indict, you announce the fact and thereafter do your talking in court, not on the courthouse steps or in private leaks to reporters.

If the evidence you collect does not merit indictment, you don’t proceed. Then, whatever your personal feelings about that may be, you say nothing, or at most make an unadorned announcement of the fact. Your job is to prosecute crime, not to make public assessments of personal character.

In short, the job is about justice. It’s not about you.


Prosecutors can be heroes. But it is the self-abnegating heroism of the warrior-monk, not the self-promoting heroism of the solo knight errant who rescues maidens and slays dragons in the hope of having bards compose ballads extolling his fame. Unsurprisingly, however, people drawn to prosecution by the promise of action in the service of virtue can be seduced into seeing themselves as the second kind of hero.


One of the risks of becoming a career prosecutor is that, because you are so often in the right and so often confront people who obviously did wrong, in time you can begin to mistake the perpetual obligation to be right with inevitably being right. And as one rises in rank, filling offices in which one commands the resources and speaks with the voice of the United States Department of Justice, the deference that comes with such roles is immense.

It requires great discipline, deep self-awareness, and a strong measure of humility to keep remembering that the job is about justice and not about you. And that doing the job means following the rules, formal and informal, of the prosecutor’s code, even if doing so may seem unwise to you personally in the heat of the moment.


Comey’s first error, now somewhat obscured by later ones, was the choice to hold a press conference in July 2016 to announce and explain in detail the conclusions of the FBI about the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while Secretary of State, including its decision not to recommend an indictment. Note what I just said — “conclusions of the FBI.”

Comey candidly admitted at the beginning of his press conference that he had not consulted the Attorney General about the recommendations he was about to discuss or the opinions he was about render. And he knew perfectly well how aberrational this behavior was.
[...]
Therefore, when Comey chose to march up to the microphones and provide a dog-and-pony show about the Clinton investigation, complete with his personal opinions about her “extreme carelessness” and the like, he committed two cardinal sins: First, he ignored the fact that, as FBI head, he was a cop, and no longer a prosecutor — that the Attorney General, not the FBI decides who gets indicted. Second, he ignored the norm that the Justice Department doesn’t “explain” decisions not to indict when the effect of the explanation will be to smear the person not indicted.


The senior leadership of the Justice Department would surely have concurred in the recommendation not to prosecute, but would probably have issued a much more conventionally terse explanation of the decision. Instead, Comey got out front with a statement that simultaneously took credit for what, given the evidence, was the only sensible prosecutorial choice, while at the same time including enough tut-tutting disapproval of Secretary Clinton’s behavior to deflect the ire of Clinton critics on Capitol Hill and beyond from the FBI and James Comey, Esq.

But you don’t get to ignore chains of command or defining norms of prosecutorial behavior because you think it will make the FBI, or you personally, look better. The job is about justice, not about you.


Comey’s later decision to send his infamous letter to Congress mere days before the election saying that some unexamined Clinton emails had been found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, and that the Clinton investigation might be reopened depending on what was in them, was even less excusable. In that case, he violated yet another important Justice Department norm, which is not to comment on the status of pending investigations immediately prior to elections.
[...]
Comey’s explanations of this decision are wholly inadequate. He poses his choice as between disclosure and “concealment,” as if there is some obligation on the part of federal law enforcement to update the public or congress on every unsubstantiated lead in an investigation. But the norm is precisely the reverse. The Department and subordinate law enforcement agencies like the FBI don’t comment on the status of investigations until they are complete and they don’t comment on unsubstantiated leads at all. Particularly not less than two weeks before an election in which the subject of an investigation is a candidate.

[N.b. Comey likely gave this notice because he was being threatened by pro-Trump leakers (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/james-comey-fbi-director-letter), although of course his aim could still then be to preserve his own/the FBI's reputation.]


Comey’s real reason was the worry that, if he had not disclosed before the election and something important was found on the laptop, then he would have been criticized by Republicans for hiding important information. To which the only possible response is — tough! Either disclosure or non-disclosure of uncorroborated allegations about a candidate can affect an election. The Justice Department policy against disclosure was created with full understanding of that dilemma. But it enjoins disclosure because only nondisclosure protects a candidate — like Hillary Clinton — whose electoral prospects will definitely be damaged by the release of information that may in the end prove baseless.

The mission of the Department of Justice is to convict the guilty, yes, but also to protect the innocent. Another part of its mission is to ensure that the process of winkling out truth does not warp the democratic process. If you work in the Department of Justice, or for its subordinate agencies, then no matter how high you climb, the job is still about justice. It’s not about you.


Rod Rosenstein has been sharply criticized, and not without reason given the timing, for writing the memo about Comey’s errors that Trump used to justify firing Comey. But everything in the Rosenstein memo — the facts and the judgments — was correct. Comey should have been fired. The only thing that makes his firing remotely controversial is that Mr. Trump sacked him for an unwillingness to do wrong in the future, rather than for the wrongs he’d done in the past.


Jim Comey is an honest man. Or at least as honest as any inevitably flawed human can be. But his basic honesty comes with two intertwined flaws. First, he knows he is honest, and on balance probably more honest than many people in public life. And that leads to a level of sanctimony dangerous in a man granted great public authority.
[...]
Second, although Comey is honest, he also has an irrepressible need to be seen as honest, indeed as more honest, and more forthrightly, courageously honest than anybody else. He thirsts, it would seem, to be publicly acclaimed as the the spotless hero of his own saga. And that is an especially dangerous trait in a law enforcement official.


By choosing to publish a book and embark on an endless round of self-promoting interviews while the Mueller investigation is ongoing, Comey, tragically, confirms that his need for self-affirmation is stronger than his loyalty to the rules and norms of the justice system he purports to be defending. He knows that he is a central witness in a potential obstruction of justice case against the president, whether that case is made in the courts or in an impeachment inquiry. And surely he remembers that the very last thing any prosecutor wants is for his star witness to be parading around the country giving interviews and creating all the little inconsistencies and toeholds for cross-examination that can undercut the credibility of any witness. And yet he seemingly cannot help himself.

[Sarmatian]

I must admit I didn't think of it that, but it does make a lot sense. Comey might also be, colloquially speaking, an attention *****.

[Sarmatian]

Double post.

[Fragony]

Narcists tend to not get along all that well wiith fellow narcists

[rory_20_uk]

How he is hurting the Republic is something I've missed. Loudly stating the truth is not defamation.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

How he is hurting the Republic is something I've missed. Loudly stating the truth is not defamation.

~:smoking:

The Comey memos declassified recently are notable not for their new content, but in how they corroborate the narratives of the past year. As well as the contents of Comey's new book. Well, if there is nothing much new in his book, what's the use (besides, as always, pissing off Trump personally)?

Trying to rehabilitate yourself in the public eye when you should be sitting tight and preparing to testify in the biggest trial(s) of American history could be seen as a needless distraction.

[Fragony]

Don move too much when you are shaved as we say here

[rory_20_uk]

The Comey memos declassified recently are notable not for their new content, but in how they corroborate the narratives of the past year. As well as the contents of Comey's new book. Well, if there is nothing much new in his book, what's the use (besides, as always, pissing off Trump personally)?

Trying to rehabilitate yourself in the public eye when you should be sitting tight and preparing to testify in the biggest trial(s) of American history could be seen as a needless distraction.

Sorry, I completely disagree. I'm not sure if he is trying to "rehabilitate" himself. Those who are avid Trump supporters are never going to change their point of view and others would probably back a career FBI official over a serial liar. I imagine he is more than capable of testifying.

He is entitled to undertake activities as a free citizen. What's the use? Like the "Art of the Deal" and the other books Donald has put his name on - money. Is Donald;s clan the only ones are allowed to gain money from activities? At least in his case he tends to be speaking the truth - normally conversations would be rather dull but at the moment we're on to the President refuting pee tapes since he'd of course not pay for prostitutes.

To stop refuting what is happening is to allow it to become "normal".

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Sorry, I completely disagree. I'm not sure if he is trying to "rehabilitate" himself. Those who are avid Trump supporters are never going to change their point of view and others would probably back a career FBI official over a serial liar. I imagine he is more than capable of testifying.

He is entitled to undertake activities as a free citizen. What's the use? Like the "Art of the Deal" and the other books Donald has put his name on - money. Is Donald;s clan the only ones are allowed to gain money from activities? At least in his case he tends to be speaking the truth - normally conversations would be rather dull but at the moment we're on to the President refuting pee tapes since he'd of course not pay for prostitutes.

To stop refuting what is happening is to allow it to become "normal".

~:smoking:

Point taken, but we don't and can't rely on Comey to continue 'refuting the abnormal'. See the rest of the article, by the way, on why Comey has this reputation and what he did wrong in 2016 professionally.

[Gilrandir]

20695

[Montmorency]

Trump voters see themselves (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dolores-antelo-donald-trump-lookalike_us_5adf8ed2e4b07be4d4c58c8c) in Trump.

[Montmorency]

Today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lu_Hgw60Ns) in remarkably unhelpful Trump quotes:


"Mr President, how much of your legal work was handled by Michael Cohen?"

Well, as a percentage of my overall legal work, a tiny, tiny little fraction!

So, no privilege claim (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/384998-federal-prosecutors-trump-comments-on-cohen-indicate-records-are) on Cohen's seized documents.


But Michael would represent me and represent me on some things... He represents me, like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, he represented me and uh, from what I see he did absolutely nothing wrong.

So was Cohen authorized on your behalf to make representations or not? If he was, why did you let him set up an invalid contract? And, as always, lie inconsistently about it?


And you look at the corruption at the top of the FBI. It's a disgrace. And our Justice Department, which I try and stay away from, but at some point I won't.

Oh dear.

[HopAlongBunny]

Fox & Friends is friendly territory.
Trump's meltdown, without really any questions directed at him demonstrates why you never consider letting Mueller have a "chat" with him.
On the upside, the interview may be used to buttress a defence of diminished capacity or dementia.

[Beskar]

Macron ideologically opposed Trump in Congress and got a standing ovation.. quite a few in fact.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lu_Hgw60Ns) in remarkably unhelpful Trump quotes:



So, no privilege claim (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/384998-federal-prosecutors-trump-comments-on-cohen-indicate-records-are) on Cohen's seized documents.



So was Cohen authorized on your behalf to make representations or not? If he was, why did you let him set up an invalid contract? And, as always, lie inconsistently about it?



Oh dear.

Are you still trying to operate based on what Trump says? To the PRESS? Trump certainly doesn't....

[Montmorency]

Are you still trying to operate based on what Trump says? To the PRESS? Trump certainly doesn't....

Anything you say can and will be used against you. :boxedin:

[drone]

Fox & Friends is friendly territory.
Trump's meltdown, without really any questions directed at him demonstrates why you never consider letting Mueller have a "chat" with him.
On the upside, the interview may be used to buttress a defence of diminished capacity or dementia.

I think he has a disconnect in his brain, where when he's talking to "friends" he forgets that TV cameras are rolling, and everyone, not just his core audience, can hear his incoherent lies. An interview with Mueller would be a little more constrained (still full of lies, but what can you do :shrug:), as he would see the other side of the conversation as an enemy. We will see when he gets deposed in the Daniels civil case. ~D

[Husar]

Are you still trying to operate based on what Trump says? To the PRESS? Trump certainly doesn't....

Well, the prosecutors seem to work with his statements regardless of how he treats them. Isn't that what matters in the end regarding the proceedings about/against him?

[rory_20_uk]

There was an interesting article on demonstrating how those who feel they are sidelined are happy to back liars as long as the liars are doing down the establishment in some way or other. That is all a load of lies is a secondary concern.

Seeing as how a portion of America is feeling disenfranchised that they no longer are an important block for those in power to pander to, having someone who they can back who is against all that is wrong is more important than what he does.

I hope in the Stormy Daniels case the judge in the civil case forces Cohen to testify - if someone takes the 5th on all matters I'd say that by default on the balance of probabilities he's guilty - why else take the 5th? Lock him up for a long time to encourage him to be more cooperative on what other matters he's been withholding.

This whole thing rather feels like the story to the film "Snake Eyes" - the empire of the Trump Clan is best out of the spotlight where no one really looks into all the dodgy deals. Now in the glare, people are investigating all the grey areas and it could all be destroyed.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

if someone takes the 5th on all matters I'd say that by default on the balance of probabilities he's guilty - why else take the 5th?

Yeah, that's kinda hilarious, because: https://youtu.be/0Nyl1yUbVHM?t=498

[HopAlongBunny]

Anything you say can and will be used against you. :boxedin:

Apparently Micheal Avenatti thinks of Trump as "the gift that keeps giving".

[HopAlongBunny]

Break out the bourbon ye Trumpkins!
The House Intelligence Committee found "No Collusion!"
The Democrat members of the committee beg to differ:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/13/593323095/house-intelligence-democrats-release-response-to-gop-russia-conclusions

Real difference or "apples and oranges"?

[HopAlongBunny]

Protecting the Special Counsel.
Some Republicans try to make the case that "really it can't be done"; this stance relies (largely not exclusively) on a dissenting opinion by Scalia in a different case.
The problems with this view are many, but the clearest is, dissenting opinions are not law.
Even if the dissent was not flawed (which it is) it does not have the weight of a decision.
A nice discussion of the problems:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/republican-senators-obsession-with-antonin-scalia-is-leading-them-to-make-sloppy-mistakes.html

[HopAlongBunny]

Oh poor Michelle Wolf.
The media has (not exclusively but mostly) been pretty negative on her appearance at The White House Correspondents Dinner.
I saw most of it and thought it was hilarious, and pretty spot-on.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/29/606834453/comedian-faces-criticism-after-controversial-remarks-at-d-c-gala

She has always been fairly crude and outspoken in her routines, if they didn't want to hear the truth they should have hired someone else.
It has never been part of Michelle Wolf's comedy to "pull her punches"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is Sunday, April 29, 2018 and Putin is still a fascist; and Trump is still an asshat.

[Hooahguy]

Oh poor Michelle Wolf.
The media has (not exclusively but mostly) been pretty negative on her appearance at The White House Correspondents Dinner.
I saw most of it and thought it was hilarious, and pretty spot-on.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/29/606834453/comedian-faces-criticism-after-controversial-remarks-at-d-c-gala

She has always been fairly crude and outspoken in her routines, if they didn't want to hear the truth they should have hired someone else.
It has never been part of Michelle Wolf's comedy to "pull her punches"

This conservative site I think has a pretty spot-on assessment (https://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2018/04/29/dont-get-angry-mean-insult-comics-helped-put-one-oval-office/)on what happened:


On his way to the White House, Trump mocked women, Hispanics, the disabled, and anyone who publicly chose not to support him unconditionally. Granted he did so without the skill of a practiced comedian so his digs were juvenile and repetitive, mostly consisting of calling people stupid, calling them losers, or mocking the fact that they aren’t as rich as he is.
...

Many of those supporters are undoubtedly perturbed by Michelle Wolf’s attempt at comedy but fail to recognize the cognitive dissonance inherent in those feelings. You can’t complain about the level of discourse if you actively helped lower it yourself.

[Gilrandir]

It is Sunday, April 29, 2018 and Putin is still a fascist; and Trump is still an asshat.

What abou Kim? Any change in his ideological affiliation/mental capacities?

As for Putin, he just wants justice and truth.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6163341/vladimir-putin-redraw-russia-maps-world-cartographers/

[rory_20_uk]

Oh poor Michelle Wolf.
The media has (not exclusively but mostly) been pretty negative on her appearance at The White House Correspondents Dinner.
I saw most of it and thought it was hilarious, and pretty spot-on.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/29/606834453/comedian-faces-criticism-after-controversial-remarks-at-d-c-gala

She has always been fairly crude and outspoken in her routines, if they didn't want to hear the truth they should have hired someone else.
It has never been part of Michelle Wolf's comedy to "pull her punches"

An event that celebrates the First Amendment... but only so far. I am not familiar with her work but if it is in line with everything else she performs it seems rather moronic to then criticise her for doing it. Asking her to submit her skit for the Propaganda Board to have a check over seems to miss the point!

In Korea over the years there have been 5 or so very weighty documents signed on all sorts of things which have made little progress (proponents might claim they have prevented things worsening). I would be amazed if Kim would trade his regime's only card to prevent take over based on what amounts to a pinkie promise from Trump - a man who has spent most of his life breaking every promise he possibly can. Not to mention Kim probably wants to be where he is - or at least living a good life somewhere - for the next 30 years or so whereas Trump will be out of office in 7 years or less.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

This conservative site I think has a pretty spot-on assessment (https://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2018/04/29/dont-get-angry-mean-insult-comics-helped-put-one-oval-office/)on what happened:

A site that wants me to fill out a captcha for "security purposes" because I'm a filthy foreign barbarian has to be trustworthy on such issues.
That aside, there is a difference between a president and a comedian. If comedians are supposed to debate political issues on the level of discourse you would expect form a president, then they're not funny anymore, like all the conservative comedians that I never heard of I guess.

That's assuming they're saying Wolf lowered it and not Trump, it appears unclear now, just going by your quoted part. No, I won't do the captcha monkey thing to get context. :whip:

[Montmorency]

Pearl-clutchers can suck it, they brought this upon us and they're still doing it. Also, the hard-right especially:

https://i.imgur.com/D6RaBF7.jpg

Korean rhetoric doesn't promise much different than post-Soviet collapse, or post-9/11, or post-Iraq... Watching and waiting recommended.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What abou Kim? Any change in his ideological affiliation/mental capacities?...

I don't pay as much attention to him as our media and as the administration does.

To the extent that I do, I would note that Kim is a Stalinist fascist. He is an egotist -- but that is hardly rare among world leaders of any stripe as elected or not it goes with the territory.

I have denigrated the metal capacity of NONE of the aforementioned. Putin is clearly shrewd (fascism does not preclude intelligence), Trump demonstrably sharp (asshats need not be stupid), and Kim has allowed South Korea to maneuver him exactly where he wants to be (Stalinist fascists pretty much have to be shrewd, and amoral, and vindictive...or they end up dead at the hands of their loving subjects).

[HopAlongBunny]

Will it never end!?
Stormy goes for the throat:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/trumps-tweet-about-stormy-daniels-backfired-and-now-shes-suing-for-defamation/

Gee can't a president even bad-mouth a plebe these days... :shocked2:
Go Stormy!:belly:

[Montmorency]

Trump demonstrably sharp

Is he though?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is he though?

Too effective at deals and business management not to be. Not a genius or near genius (the claims of a 151 IQ have been debunked), by any means, and his 'pit everyone against each other' management style is causing trouble, but he isn't stupid.

[Montmorency]

Too effective at deals and business management not to be. Not a genius or near genius (the claims of a 151 IQ have been debunked), by any means, and his 'pit everyone against each other' management style is causing trouble, but he isn't stupid.

Is he effective (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/23/why-trump-really-believes-hes-the-most-successful-president-ever-215063) at deals and business management? Well, we can see that he is effective at branding...

(As an aside, I would be suspicious in principle of any linearization of "success" with "intelligence", since it's routinely used by the powerful to excuse themselves.)

It's not just his words and spech... I can't recall even temporary political advantage resulting from something Trump has clearly initiated himself (even narrowly defined among Trump's base) as opposed to being a course of action announced by his administration (where his advisors and cabinet and the last person to speak t o him are often reported to be more influential in timing and content). (Here's Hitler (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec) at least sounding coherent.)

Comey's (https://www.thedailybeast.com/rip-him-apart-trump-glued-to-james-comey-book-blitz-as-feud-escalates) impression of Trump's intelligence:


“I don’t buy this stuff about him being mentally incompetent or early stages of dementia,” Comey said. “He strikes me as a person of above average intelligence who’s tracking conversations and knows what’s going on. I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president. I think he’s morally unfit to be president. A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they’re pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it, that person’s not fit to be president of the United States, on moral grounds. And that’s not a policy statement. Again, I don’t care what your views are on guns or immigration or taxes.”

You still have someone with a demonstrable inability to connect causes with consequences, or at least a lack of intellectual flexibility to match behavior to desirable or undesirable consequences. In the triad (http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/nas1/07c187/Module%201/module_1_p3.html) of impairment, disability, and dysfunction (sometimes handicap), Trump is objectively dysfunctional behaviorally and arguably cognitively. The other categories are more difficult to establish, but this much is blatant.

Intelligence is a frighteningly slippery concept, but in what confidence could you place this guy if you know him? Not with your money, not with sweeping your floors...

You could claim that he has an instinct for hurting or manipulating people, but as the above suggests on a large scale this is more a byproduct of his flailing than a calculated effort. His one and only sensitivity, gathered from all the secondhand reports about how he acts in a room of people: he's perceptive about power dynamics and relationships between individuals, in the sense that it's salient to him when he isn't the center gravity. He hones in on what people like about it, while more or less eliding what they dislike. He knows how to wield favor and humiliation in his circles. He's conscious of his paradoxical role to the news media overall, that symbiosis. I don't know what you call it.

In other words, he's a troglodyte. I think he's closer to your standard idiot than idiot-savant.

He is definitely not more intelligent than an "average" person, assuming I have a good baseline for average people.

[Husar]

Too effective at deals and business management not to be.

Where do you take this from? Why did his casino go bankrupt if he is such a great manager? And what are the awesome deals he made so far?
To me he looks more like the proof that any idiot can become richer if he is born with the right privilege and completely ruthless.

IIRC he lied to the Forbes people to get onto their list and then proved his wealth with that fake statistic to get loans from banks. I don't think anyone can do that and having had the name Trump and the wealth of his father in his back is probably what made people not check this thoroughly enough. If my name showed up in the top 50 Forbes list of richest people tomorrow, I kinda doubt a bank would accept that as proof of my wealth. Just as I doubt Forbes would fall for my lies in the first place. In his case he lied to a Forbes reporter telling him the entire wealth of his father was now his.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-about-his-wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400-here-are-the-tapes/2018/04/20/ac762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.112a24583203


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdteSQzKE_4

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lying effectively and gaming a system effectively, Husar, are not signs of intellectual shortcomings but, as Monty alluded to using Comey's quotation, moral and ethical shortcomings.

I am unwavering in my assessment of Trump as an asshat, I merely refuse to fall down the "I think he is an asshat so everything he is and has ever done must be evil, all of his ideas must be stupid, all of his supposed successes must have been faked, etc." rabbithole. It is akin to Stalin lifting Trotsky out of all the photos in order to make a fabrication real and far too much of here's what I think so now let's interpret everything based on my view is a "given." Look at each action and effort item by item and credit what is done well and damn what is done poorly. There are more than enough of the latter in my opinion.

Trump should be assessed on what he does in the office and how well he does it. Reviews, so far, are mixed at best.

I have supported the GOP with few exceptions since the 1970s. I have to actively consider voting for whatever yahoo the Dems put up -- who will likely be a big government is the only way crazy, given the current polarization in our politics -- to keep the asshat from demeaning the office further. Galling.

[Montmorency]

Lying effectively and gaming a system effectively, Husar, are not signs of intellectual shortcomings but, as Monty alluded to using Comey's quotation, moral and ethical shortcomings. I am unwavering in my assessment of Trump as an asshat, I merely refuse to fall down the "I think he is an asshat so everything he is and has ever done must be evil, all of his ideas must be stupid, all of his supposed successes must have been faked, etc." It is akin to Stalin lifting Trotsky out of all the photos in order to make a fabrication real. Look at them item by item and credit what is done well and damn what is done poorly.

Trump should be assessed on what he does in the office and how well he does it. Reviews, so far, are mixed at best.

But what has he done well (holistically in life)? He lies by volume, not effectiveness.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But what has he done well (holistically in life)? He lies by volume, not effectiveness.

I edited my post. You were too quick and are responding to the abridged version.

Nothing he has ever done is right, nothing worked, he always was wrong, it was all given too him, he only knows how to shout louder whether it is whining or crying, he is the font of all evil, the bastard is responsible for us losing the Vietnam war, he was probably the thug in the crowd hired by the Pharisees to get them stirred up enough for Pilate to crucify Jesus.

With that mantra we can now close the thread. Why bother going through the particulars when the decision is cast in stone already.

[Montmorency]

I understand it is difficult to conceive of any particulars, but that is what I'm asking.

Although an aside again: why would you support the Republicans if you don't like "big government is the only way"? Any alleged distinction against the Democrats here is so marginal that without considering any other factors you would be obliged to give Republican and Democratic candidates an equal hearing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I understand it is difficult to conceive of any particulars, but that is what I'm asking.

Although an aside again: why would you support the Republicans if you don't like "big government is the only way"? Any alleged distinction against the Democrats here is so marginal that without considering any other factors you would be obliged to give Republican and Democratic candidates an equal hearing.

I have no problems with particulars. I am inundated with a litany of strident comments that all boil down to Trump is wrong because he is Trump. A reasoned discussion of the particulars would be refreshing.

You may parse out your reasons for loathing him fairly well, but the bulk of the no Trump crowd is so pro hoc ergo propter hoc about everything that nothing gets evaluated except in the light of preconceived judgement.


Many of the GOP are nearly as big govt. as the Dems, that has to be acknowledged. Most of those GOPers tend towards toleration and not wanting to change things rather than towards accelerating things towards one big happy government like a goodly portion of the Dems. There are even a few GOP types who are actively seeking to dial back government in a measured fashion. When I spot one of those, I can actually vote happily. I am not, for the most part, a social issue traditionalist, so those issues rarely bother me.

Gary marriage cheapens the sanctity of marriage? Laughed out loud at that one. The only persons who can cheapen my marriage are myself and the wife. I dislike "hate crimes" laws not because the crimes are not heinous, but because I do not believe the government should be in the business of punishing thoughts. Gun control? Not in favor as it is the last tool of the citizenry to combat tyranny. However, since when they wrote that amendment folks were more or less ubiquitously trained with guns -- and if you missed you went hungry -- a few laws requiring safety training and storage etc. are no less than reasonable. There are others....

Trump offends me less on a policy level then he does with his poor management style, reactive planning approach, and crass disregard for anything resembling a classy approach to the Presidency.

[rory_20_uk]

People invariably have an impression of someone and then look for facts.

So Trump is a vulgar narcissist who displays almost no traits to be the President. But Obama failed to reach consensus with Congress much of the time, failed to close Guantanamo repeatedly, undertook illegal raids into sovereign states and expanded the use of drones in many others leading to the deaths of thousands of people... whilst hoovering up a Peace Nobel. Equally he flip-flopped on the Middle East (not an easy area for anyone) but he definitely let Russia become the main player by being so timorous. He equally had a vacuous strapline "yes we can" which he mainly failed to deliver on.

He was the outside hope, just like Trump was, Bill Clinton was, Reagan was... The USA seems to constantly pick "outsiders" hoping that they can suddenly sort out the malaise and get frustrated when they fail.

My preferred President to date has been Bill Clinton. As long as his recurrent infidelities did not damage the functioning of the state, that is a relatively small price to pay to have someone who is frankly able to do the job. It is rather unfortunate he ousted the Republican "Royalty" which seems to have caused ire he never overcame.

So I can't stand Trump as a person, but I also think he is a worse President than most in recent memory mainly for having no driver beyond "winning" and having very little interest in what has been won.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

No particulars? I ask because I've seriously never seen or heard of a person so inferior that didn't end up dead in a ditch after a lifetime of crime and vice.

Look, sure I'll give you this one if Trump manages to beat the investigations, eliminates his opposition and retains his office for a few years or decades.

Half points if he dies within a year of peak power.


Trump offends me less on a policy level then he does with his poor management style, reactive planning approach, and crass disregard for anything resembling a classy approach to the Presidency.

:on_dark: IMO the superficial norms are relatively unimportant to the substance. At least you can laugh about it. Pretty much every President is an asshole. For instance, what LBJ did and how he talked to people was often racist and crass and reprehensible, yet somehow... impressive (https://books.google.com/books?id=KEbAqBwog8YC&pg=PA331&lpg=PA331&dq=LBJ++george+wallace+%22Why+don%27t+you+let+the+niggers+vote%22&source=bl&ots=Bm7w3jxand&sig=OQspcvR4DUYmo8IvCm-Ybq3Abcs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXyd7PnObaAhXinuAKHVTaBY4Q6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=LBJ%20%20george%20wallace%20%22Why%20don't%20you%20let%20the%20niggers%20vote%22&f=false)?


Many of the GOP are nearly as big govt. as the Dems, that has to be acknowledged. Most of those GOPers tend towards toleration and not wanting to change things rather than towards accelerating things towards one big happy government like a goodly portion of the Dems.

This is happening because the past generation of Democrats decided going right of "Eisenhower Republicans" (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/trump-tax-cuts-health-care-democrats-redistribution) was a good idea.

CLINTON SWIPES THE GOP'S LYRICS (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1996/07/21/clinton-swipes-the-gops-lyrics/9c725e88-b5a7-46a5-bb74-8bc12b22795b/?utm_term=.fb32df8b3908)


"THE GOOD news is that we may elect a Republican president this year," said Republican consultant Alex Castellanos. "The bad news is that it may be Bill Clinton."

"I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?"

Here is a selection of the "big happy government" Democrats.


It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours -- ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper.

Socialist (https://newrepublic.com/article/145727/socialist-beat-one-virginias-powerful-republicans) beats GOP House-majority Whip in 2017 Virginia elections; Democratic colleague responds by trolling him with Soviet flag during floor-talk on corporate-inducements bill (1:52).


https://youtu.be/o9L9B7beFEI?t=1m52s

Blue Dog party elite explains machine politics (https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/steny-hoyer-audio-levi-tillemann) to hard-left upstart.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcgPyKt-ysY

Times a thousand (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/26/democratic-party-laura-moser-texas).

Storm the citadel and drive out the occupants. What Corbynites did to Labour may be the only option for left-wing movements.

If you stick with the Republicans, you can integrate those of the Democrats' right flank (i.e. the leadership) who leave, moderate the Republicans a sliver.

Flipping the South sure changed the Republican Party's priorities:

https://i.imgur.com/0jmtUAC.jpg

[Husar]

Lying effectively and gaming a system effectively, Husar, are not signs of intellectual shortcomings but, as Monty alluded to using Comey's quotation, moral and ethical shortcomings.

I am unwavering in my assessment of Trump as an asshat, I merely refuse to fall down the "I think he is an asshat so everything he is and has ever done must be evil, all of his ideas must be stupid, all of his supposed successes must have been faked, etc." rabbithole. It is akin to Stalin lifting Trotsky out of all the photos in order to make a fabrication real and far too much of here's what I think so now let's interpret everything based on my view is a "given." Look at each action and effort item by item and credit what is done well and damn what is done poorly. There are more than enough of the latter in my opinion.

Trump should be assessed on what he does in the office and how well he does it. Reviews, so far, are mixed at best.

I have supported the GOP with few exceptions since the 1970s. I have to actively consider voting for whatever yahoo the Dems put up -- who will likely be a big government is the only way crazy, given the current polarization in our politics -- to keep the asshat from demeaning the office further. Galling.

You're wrong about my point and you're also not answering my question anywhere as Monty also pointed out.
My point is not that lying makes him stupid, but that him gaining his welath via lies does not make him a great manager, it says more about the failure of others to check his statements. I don't count gaming the system as a great management skill just like being able to type god mode into a console does not make you the best shooter player deserving of the ESL top prize for whatever league.

His statements, the logic he displays in public and most other indicators do not make me think he is particularly clever. Maybe not stupid either, but certainly not clever. Yet you state you believe him to be a great businessman and a great dealmaker. So I ask you to name some examples where he managed a business very well or made a great deal, before he became president.

If your only argument in favor of him being a great dealmaker is "let's wait and see what he still does as president", you're also doing the cumquad hoc propter somethingorother by claiming he already is a great dealmaker before you know of even a single great deal he made.

Just name two or three concrete examples of great deals he made before he was elected president. There have to be some, or the claim is simply empty.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You're wrong about my point and you're also not answering my question anywhere as Monty also pointed out.
My point is not that lying makes him stupid, but that him gaining his welath via lies does not make him a great manager, it says more about the failure of others to check his statements. I don't count gaming the system as a great management skill just like being able to type god mode into a console does not make you the best shooter player deserving of the ESL top prize for whatever league.

His statements, the logic he displays in public and most other indicators do not make me think he is particularly clever. Maybe not stupid either, but certainly not clever. Yet you state you believe him to be a great businessman and a great dealmaker. So I ask you to name some examples where he managed a business very well or made a great deal, before he became president.

If your only argument in favor of him being a great dealmaker is "let's wait and see what he still does as president", you're also doing the cumquad hoc propter somethingorother by claiming he already is a great dealmaker before you know of even a single great deal he made.

Just name two or three concrete examples of great deals he made before he was elected president. There have to be some, or the claim is simply empty.

I said effective, not great. Great are things like the Camp David Accords, Nixon's efforts with the PRC, Google buying Doubleclick and YouTube...None of Trump's deals rise to those levels. Trump did take himself from the verge of bankruptcy (his fault) to a turnaround that totals in the billions (also his fault). Bill Gates or Warren Buffet good? Hell no.

[Husar]

I said effective, not great. Great are things like the Camp David Accords, Nixon's efforts with the PRC, Google buying Doubleclick and YouTube...None of Trump's deals rise to those levels. Trump did take himself from the verge of bankruptcy (his fault) to a turnaround that totals in the billions (also his fault). Bill Gates or Warren Buffet good? Hell no.

That still doesn't prove him an effective manager. Plenty of gurus just scam the right gullible people and become rich that way, that doesn't mean you could give them a well-run company tomorrow and watch them succeed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The ability to take advantage of the abused and unfortunate is not clever nor a show of any strong intellect. And let's be clear, when we talk about Trump's position it is entirely built upon the unfortunate and the abused, down to the fake promises of reviving the rust belt to its 1960s heyday.

If we want to elevate our opinion of Trump's intellect above Grade A moron, we must be ready to bestow the same level of praise to Jim Jones and Charles Manson. Cults of personality don't require intellect, only strong ego's and willing listeners.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That still doesn't prove him an effective manager. Plenty of gurus just scam the right gullible people and become rich that way, that doesn't mean you could give them a well-run company tomorrow and watch them succeed.

I am not sure he is an effective manager. I know that the idea behind the "everybody unsure all the time, always competing with one another" model is supposed to generate high performance from people busting but to not fail and get trashed by their peers, but I have problems with that approach to management in business and suspect it doesn't work for [insert favorite synonym for excrement here] in government.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The ability to take advantage of the abused and unfortunate is not clever nor a show of any strong intellect. And let's be clear, when we talk about Trump's position it is entirely built upon the unfortunate and the abused, down to the fake promises of reviving the rust belt to its 1960s heyday.

If we want to elevate our opinion of Trump's intellect above Grade A moron, we must be ready to bestow the same level of praise to Jim Jones and Charles Manson. Cults of personality don't require intellect, only strong ego's and willing listeners.

Gotta agree on the Rust Belt stuff. That kind of factory job in those numbers simply cannot recur.

[Montmorency]

By the way, doesn't Kim Kardashian come to mind? At least as good a brander and salesperson as Trump.

Though it could help that she presents as a glamorous high-life woman and Trump presents as a crusty gasbag.

Both ultimately have to disappear (http://www.generation-wealth.com/). :shrug: