Printable View
Ok, I will admit the art is creepy as hell, but the Pizzagate stuff has been debunked ages ago.
That email you quote could also mean that these kids are coming to the party so there will be more fun things for the kids to do while the adults do their own thing. Probably is totally innocent. Considering that the last name of one of the kids matches up to one of the people on that email chain (Tamera Luzzatto) I would wager my thinking is the more likely version.
Hm more accurately the only part of the pizzagate stuff that was properly debunked was the idea that there was a sex ring operating under the pizza place, the potential of paedophiles in the campaign staff was not, not that that stopped people trying to say that on this very board IIRC.
Technically neither was the pizza being code for kid thing, though personally I dont put much stock on it myself; the whole thing came up as someone taking an example from a previous case and looking for it in the thousands of emails and coming across one where a Stratfor CEO getting annoyed that he has no idea why his employees kept metioning a "pizza project".
Eh, I dont like it, the whole bringing kids by uber and calling them "entertainment" rubs me the wrong way, though I admit I might be inclined to agree were it not for John Podesta being invited and the general malaise of sleaze over the entire campaign.Quote:
That email you quote could also mean that these kids are coming to the party so there will be more fun things for the kids to do while the adults do their own thing. Probably is totally innocent. Considering that the last name of one of the kids matches up to one of the people on that email chain (Tamera Luzzatto) I would wager my thinking is the more likely version.
Even ignoring the general idea that there are weird sex things going on all over capitol hill, clinton and co had connections to various paedophiles, like Bill's association with Jeffry Epstien's "Lolita Express" or Tony Podesta's friendship with Dennis Hastert not to mention Anthony Wiener, or that client clinton laughed over getting off despite being guilty as sin.
Plus there was that spirit cooking thing, blech.
With all that I find it hard not to see the bad interpretation as more probable than it perhaps should be, I suspect this is the same sort of predisposition what a lot of people have about the various trump corruption allegations.
Granted, the art is creepy. What does that prove? If I was a serial murderer or a pedophile, I would not openly display fetish pictures in my own house where visitors could see it. So the obvious conclusion is that Podesta is a murderer, a child predator and colossally stupid at the same time :rolleyes:
So again: you're just waiting until the day until your belief in Pizzagate is vindicated. So that you'll never be forced to admit you tarnished somebody else's name in the worst possible manner, without any shred of evidence. Plus, all the sleepless nights and stress that guys like you gave that restaurant owner and his family.
The email was likely not have been referring to the kids as entertainment, but that other means of entertainment would be arranged for the kids. Considering that it talks about the kids being in the pool I think thats likeliest explanation. Occam's razor and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Hell it it might be a snide asside for how children usually ruin things, but it is coming from those that travel in sketchy circles and suppose I do not posess the good faith you hold them in.
Lets see, a strawman saying I was intending to prove anything instead of explaining my expectation, an assumption of rationality upon an actor which by definition suffer a mental illness, assigning guilt over an action I took no part in, demonzing me for that asserted action, appealing to to shame over same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
You're projecting as usual, anything to declare your opposition evil.
Pizzagate is what happens when the government allows too many NEET's to congregate in one place.
So as it turns out, Manafort is the first to be indicted, as I suspected.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Though we should remember the old 'ham sandwich' rule, and probably construe this more as a tool to encourage good singing than anything else.
Manafort indicted on 12 charges including conspiracy against the United States. Former business partner Rick Gates also surrendered to authorities.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charges...rump-1.4377948
Just musing. I think Manafort is primarily concerned with what is good for Manafort; he will sing like a canary:jumping:
Related to those who support Trump: https://www.vox.com/2016/9/9/1284312...ment-overreach
A nice overview of where we might head now that the process has started:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ed-next-215762
One not mentioned is the Trump Nuclear Option.
One version simply goes with Trump firing Mueller. He might not be able to that directly.Trump might be forced to fire his Deputy AG, and anyone beneath him who refuses to co-operate.
Upon finding a willing dance partner Trump appoints him/her to the vacant position using a law that allows temporary appointments (without confirmation) to fill a vacancy for 210 days.
The Total Destruction version hinges on something I have not been able to confirm. If the very position Mueller is in was created by an Executive Order, well that's just too easy. Abolish the post with a new Executive Order and the whole problem disappears!
If people did that rolling smoke thing in my area, I'd make use of the open carry laws. Surely firing a bullet vs firing toxic smoke is a fair exchange? :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
A shooting war might be just what They want :stare:
Further to this. If Muellers' investigation/charges do lead to an impeachment, what are the odds of a Civil War v.2?
OMG!
It's happening! Nov.4 'cause that's just how these anarchists roll!
https://wonkette.com/625024/oh-no-th...-be-very-fraid
Slim or none, and last I heard 'Slim' was fixin' to ride outa town.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
If he is impeached, you may see our political parties fracture in a way they haven't since the ACW, but there is simply no generalized support for that kind of violence.
There are somewhere between 900 and 1000 hate groups in the USA. Their average membership is well below 500. With more than 280 million citizens and a total residency of over 320 million, that represents a small fraction of 1% and there is simply no groundswell of greater support. In fact, some of the hate groups also hate each other, so it isn't even a vaguely cohesive movement.
Individual haters generating a terrorism/threat of violence threat, yes. A2CW? Not gonna happen.
If you go to that antifa website: https://revolutionaryabolition.orgQuote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
And watch the video, you may actually realize, that we have a case of TWO crazy sides.
I would assume and hope the anarchists aren't as dangerous, but who knows when these people think they're the US version of the FARC and what not? Are some of their claims legitimate? Yes. Is it very, very crazy to take up arms and massacre people while claiming to end injustice? Yes. They'd have much more credibility if they tried to help Bernie Sanders instead of claiming he'll never get anywhere (which he is even less likely to do if they're not helping him).
Also, is the guy in the video an actual cop? He sure sounds and also looks like one, but I'm pretty sure if a policeman here made such a video, I'd expect him to get suspended/fired really fast.
Well the image starting the piece has "100% Total Bull****" blazoned across it :)
From the article:
"Here is Mr. Not A Real Officer Pelz warning about the coming breakdown of society and calling for armed citizens to take up arms against the violent Antifa thugs: "
But I see what you are getting at...
That's exactly the image they wish to portray until their Anti-Antifa Revolution strikes!!!
It looks like Greyblades will have to quiet his rants and go have a smoke
Tony Podesta is apparently a drive-by bit o'roadkill in the latest dust up.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-broker-244341
No mention of murder or pedophile rings. He is packing up his business and quietly leaving the scene.
He might be back later, but perhaps the present "law and order" push on the Hill isn't the right "fit":sweatdrop: (speculate wildly, even irresponsibly)
The full indictments can be found courtesy of MotherJones:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...nd-rick-gates/
More important (up to this point) than Manafort is that a certain Trump campaign advisor Papadopoulos Flipped-on-Trump-oulos sometime in the summer. Papadopoulos brought out talk of Clinton research and meetings and emails with Putin almost right away upon joining Trump's national security/foreign policy team in March 2016. The more Paps talked up his Russian links, the higher he moved up in the campaign, even as the other members of his original team left over such reasons as lack of compensation. The timeline on communications regarding Russian communications with the campaign is pushed back further: before Manafort joined, before the Trump Jr. meeting, before the Wikileaks email dump, then after the national convention, after the election...
Concretely on collusion here, is if it can be demonstrated that any platform positions taken by the Trump campaign following March 31st (at least) constitute quid pro quo.
Fun byproduct: Wikileaks is further implicated as a front or intermediary for Russian intelligence.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
GB has backed Trump, Brexit, and Corbyn. Is he a Putin fan or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Amazing how the guilty plea of an unknown like Papadopoulos can bring out such ire from the administration. After a full week of trying to discredit the investigation and paint the Clinton campaigns use of the Steele dossier as collusion to have charges brought on the three of the circle is perfect timing.
I'm certainly curious when/if something will be brought against Michael Flynn and son seeing as the investigation into him is one of the major reasons Comey was fired.
I'd actually be happy if the investigation was expanded into the Ukraine/Uranium thing that the administration is using to deflect just to make the Mueller investigation less able to be painted as a partisan hit job. We've already seen the past few months the analysis of every lawyer added to the Mueller team to see if they'd ever donated to a Democrat as building up ammo to discredit it.
On a side note, it is rather irritating how all this news as overshadowed much mention of the Catalan or Kurdish crises in the US which are every bit as important.
Its amusing to me to see Trump claim that Papadopoulos was a low level intern or something where theres photo proof of him sitting at national security meetings with Trump & co.
He is a victim of a society that totally hates white males. Seriously. Hates them. Wink.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What do you call hot air that is offensive to be around?
Well as some have pointed out, Mueller looks like he is playing himself in the eventual TV/film dramatization of the Trump presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
US political dramas simply have a market advantage over foreign-language, even action/war genre. You need the square-jawed American man as a protagonist to compete.
Also, it appears the Special Counsel's office has set up a webpage Monday. Stay tuned for viral content?
Not completely buried is the latest shake-up at the EPA:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4e604605e94f
Receiving funding from the EPA seems to give EPA scientists a "biased agenda"
We are to be saved by more objective opinions direct from industry.
Idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
EPA funding ensures impartiality as there is no vested interest.
Sort of. There is quite a lot of pressure in academe to secure grant funding -- it often pays the wages of all working on the research project -- so being on an oversight board for the EPA while receiving grant money from same is potentially a conflict of interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
On the other hand, that would be true only of active grants, not past grants.
From the website you posted:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Anarchists aren't going to attempt an armed insurgency until they feel like they have popular support and there is some sort of government crackdown or major unrest. This is basically what happened in Rojava/North Syria which that website cites as inspiration; the PYD had been organizing underground for years until the civil war broke out and they then took the opportunity to kick the regime out and create their own political institutions.Quote:
Long Term Goal: Building the Abolitionist Project
For the Abolitionist project to be successful we must eventually transition from resistance to a revolutionary situation. Relationships and groups built through the underground railroad have the potential to become the foundation for organized defense groups, local councils, and regional/national councils.
We invite comrades to coordinate our activities regionally, and nationally as part of an Abolitionist Council.
In fact there's on-site coverage, Vice News or some other networks, of European anarchists who have volunteered to participate in the 'Kurdish experiment'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
I agree with the socialists: adventurists, the lot.
So the anarchists are waiting to get organized... :inquisitive:~:rolleyes:~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
Maybe "insurgency" was the wrong word, because at that point it would be more of a militia based endeavor like the American Revolution was than a terrorist insurgency like FARC. Either way my point still stands, anarchists aren't stupid/crazy enough to start a random terror campaign like the alt-right hysterics claim they will.
Which is kind of funny in a way, because Abdullah Ocalan, the PYD's philosophical leader, was influenced by an American radical named Murray Bookchin, who proposed that the state should be replaced with a confederation of democratic municipal assemblies. Bookchin considered himself an anarchist for many decades but he couldn't convince any other anarchists to adopt his ideas and ended up disowning the anarchist movement. Now that Bookchin is dead and some of his ideas are being implemented in Rojava, anarchists are willing to travel to Syria and risk their lives in support of Rojava's revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The militia men right wingers and the ANTIFA guys are both dangerous threats. While most won't actually resort to violence it only takes a few idiots on each side to do violence. If the clamp down is too heavy handed by the authorities it usually galvanizes the extremist which ratchet up their actions too. If it turns into tit-for-tat between groups then it generally escalates and becomes 'normalized.'
The world has had more than enough violence spells that start out as protests then riots then outright rebellion and it can happen anywhere.
The color revolutions of Eastern Europe would have turned into civil war if the authorities had chosen to use force.
You must have missed the part where they celebrate having street fights against the police and show pride about hurting policemen.
That is something they do already and it makes them crazy, just like the idea that small communes of people were somehow a solution for all our problems...
The best revision of taxes ever!!!
Does a lot go to the top income bracket? Why yes! Yes it does!!!
America is about to be drenched in Trickle Down goodness!
https://wonkette.com/625291/gop-tax-...class-families
It is indeed amazing how the deficit is no longer an issue with a White Republican in the White House :laugh4:
Disinformation! from the White House
The liar-in-chief is again seeking to switch the conversation from a "Trump did a boo boo" sort of thing; to a "Lock up Hillary!" sort of thing.
Problem is the "Uranium scandal" was a non-starter when it came out quite some time ago. Today, there is still no case to be made.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/31/...-campaign-yet/
It might shore up the base for some real fireworks...just in case Mueller tightens the circle a little more.
Here is another non-starter:Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-grand-canyon/
It's all good.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Coal and nuclear aren't economic now, but that's okay because the little people will pay for it:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...k-perry-244535
Corporate welfare? Oh my, I think you might misunderestimate the vital strategic importance of maintaining capacity with less efficient solutions.
Nice to see my state give Trump and the GOP the collective finger yesterday. It will be interesting to watch the effects ripple through the federal level as vulnerable GOP congressmen start sweating.
In his ongoing law blog on impeachable offenses, Frank Bowman examines the implications of Trump quasi-ordering the Justice Dept. and the courts and LE to pursue politically-motivated investigation/prosecution against Trump's enemies. In the comments you have the spectacle of Frank patiently replying to some characteristically-unhinged screeds.
Also, FOX interview:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interviewer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trump
Quote:Bring. Him. Down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trump
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
He is a threat to our democracy and the world in general. I hope the Dems take the house next year so he can be impeached.
Nope. Just an asshat. More of a historical blip when all is said and done. Gives Chester Arthur a chance to get off of the bottom of the list of unmemorables.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
I don't see how you can be dismissive. The man himself is ignominious, but he represents a national crisis that will continue through all his term and will not end with its termination by whichever means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Chester Arthur lived in an era of different government and political structures, and was at least a relatively decent man. "Unmemorable" is not equivalent to heinous.
This is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I applaud the attempt to be the voice of reason but I'm afraid it's futile: this has become an echochamber; a cycle of raising eachother's spirits over forlorne hopes and then pushing eachother into rage over smokescreens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
It's sad, but trump derangement syndrome can only end when they want it to end. Psychological warfare experts will be studying this era for centuries to come.
You are very unclear once more. Who are "they"? What is "trump derangement syndrome"? What is an "echochamber"? And are you still supporting Trump like you did some months ago when you said he had achieved all his goals? Because your post could be interpreted several ways depending on all that.:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
This is no echochamber, there's no shortage of opposing opinions. Just because most people see that an inept, unworldly, narcissist is unsuited for one of the most important political positions in the planet doesn't make it an echo-chamber. I'm quite conservative on a host of issues and rather hawkish too but he is one man that is wholly unsuited to the office he's in. He might just be an asshat but that type of person in such an important position is a threat to standing of the United States in the world as well as the stability of the post-WWII/post-coldwar world order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
As much as I dislike the even more extreme policies of Mike Pence I would much more prefer his mental stability and general competence than the current POTUS. Just to be clear I didn't vote for Hillary either, had to throw away my vote in protest with Gary Johnson.
As for derangement, if you're referring to our hopes that he's impeached, well that just that, a hope. He's got no shortage of shady people in his immediate periphery that have ties to Russia to include his immediate family members, in-laws and quite possibly himself if the Trump Tower Moscow bit is to be believed.
If he's not impeached I'd hope that at least the Republican establishment can see that the Trump wing of the party is not useful under their current 'big tent' arrangement and force them to create an actual Tea Party, Christian Values Party, or Trump Party instead of continuing the hijack of the Republican party by xenophobic protectionist simpletons in the vein of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Yes, they'd lose votes and seats but at least they'd have some principles I could once again support.
Don't know the truth of that as yet, but there seem to be Russian links with social media accounts peddling fake news in the recent Catalan crisis. And of course, pretty strong evidence for such accounts doing the same for Brexit (the most followed such account began life as a pro-Russia account during the Ukraine crisis in 2013, with memes that resurfaced in the Trump election, but has spent most of its life as a supposedly British account peddling pro-UKIP, pro-Brexit and anti-immigration stories). With so many people getting their news from social media without taking trouble to verify their sources, Russia and Putin must be laughing their heads off at the effectiveness of their low budget foreign policy and economic and democratic sabotage.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Not sure it is as low as you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As @Greyblades is a fellow EU4 player and plays England a lot, I will put it this way... Trump is King Henry VI Lancaster on the 1444 Start in terms of Ruler Stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
If America is infected with HIV, Trump would be the AIDS.
Take your retrovirals, people. Don't be full of AIDS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0xEoKRHRi4
I never saw Trump talk like this before.
The closest thing to a dissenting opinion I have seen in months think's he's merely an asshat, you may believe it is justified but over the last few months this thread has hosted the diversity of opinion of a momentumn rally.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
I was referring to the person I consider the most wise person here declaring trump to be a threat to democracy. Now I have the next comparing him to AIDS.Quote:
As for derangement, if you're referring to our hopes that he's impeached, well that just that, a hope.
Hope is one thing, desperate as it may be after a year of empty grasping, gross hyperbole is another. This thread is turning into a shrine to peer pressure and confirmation bias, it is frankly a miracle noone has been so insipid as to start declaring Dubya preferable. Yet anyway.
EU4 is a game company's evaluation of 500 years of history's rulers, they include failures that make bush look like an augustus and suceess that makes FDR look a Commodus. Henry VI earned his 0/0/0 by doing whatever he was told and spending months at a time literally catatonic, not even Carlos II hapsburg or Lois XVI bourbon merited that little.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
By the standards of 1455 to 1836 Trump thus far would be in the league of Henry VIII; 3/3/4
Why do you think that diversity of opinion on Trump's character or fitness has merit, rather than being a sign of moral and intellectual defect? Do you actually have anything to offer on the subject besides indistinct contrarianism and water-carrying?Quote:
The closest thing to a dissenting opinion that wasnt me just think's he's merely an asshat, over the last few months this thread has hosted the diversity of opinion of a momentumn rally.
George W. Bush's tenure is one of the only things keeping Trump from claiming the title of "Worst POTUS".Quote:
it is frankly a mircale noone has been so insipid as to start declaring Dubya preferable. Yet anyway.
He long ago claimed "Worst Candidate", however.
There is no point Monty. He might as well be a paid Russian troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Spmetla has already explained that maybe Trump is so bad that only very few people like him anymore and most of them aren't here.
Would it make you happy if I posted dissenting opinions about how great Trump is or what do you want?
You seem to be saying that somehow the thread is terrible because everybody in here dislikes Trump. Have you ever considered that maybe the reason this is the only thread where pretty much everyone agrees is that Trump is just terrible or can that not be the case because it does not fit your opinion?
And if you have a differing opinion, why not provide it as Monty says? Don'te be lazy, break up the echo chamber yourself!
What exactly is your point?
That's largely because most people that were on the fence or supported him because of the Republican brand have seen him for what he's worth.Quote:
The closest thing to a dissenting opinion I have seen in months think's he's merely an asshat, you may believe it is justified but over the last few months this thread has hosted the diversity of opinion of a momentumn rally.
He was largely elected because he was supposed to be a no nonsense business man that would use that savvy to help the economy, help the standing of the US via diplomacy and also because he was not the Clinton witch.
He's instead undermined NATO by reducing his understanding and support to simple transnational accounting. Left the TPP which was supposed to help us check China's economic clout. He openly sides with every autocrat around, has yet to criticize Putin for anything. Looking at how his trip to Asia has gone he's made it obvious he's no negotiator or deal maker, he just wants to be courted and feel important.
He's made it plain for all to see that he's actually not used to having to do anything. If any legislation requires more than his vocal support he doesn't seem to do anything to push for it's being passed.
His threat to democracy is evident in his on going war with the press. Yes, they don't like him. He is however a compulsive liar and his constant contradictions, statements in the realm of fantasy, and undermining of the very people he picked to do his work for him undermine our democracy. He as a key negotiator should know how to schmooze people, instead he feuds with Mitch and Ryan, insults respectable people like Mccain making our system of checks and balances a deadlock instead.
Additionally, his complete and utter lack of understanding of how the rule of law works in this country undermines peoples faith in that branch as well. How dare his criticize the federal courts and suggest Gitmo and a military tribunal for a terror suspect instead when the last 15 years of war have shown how ineffective Gitmo and tribunals are.
Believe me, I'd love the POTUS to make the economy grow, use a mix of hard and soft power to ensure the stability of the world order. I actually support several of the policies he supposedly is pushing but I've yet to see infrastructure pushed, I've yet to see him be tough of China, I've yet to see sensible immigration that isn't based on religion.
He's made it evident that the Trump brand is the most important thing to him which is terrible to me because the most important thing should be the brand of the United States which he drags through the mud almost every time he opens his mouth.
Well if he starts two endless wars and takes a growing economy and puts it into recession then he'd get to take a seat with Dubya as well. This tax plan has me worried because it seems to hinge on rosy economic forecasts which if aren't even close to attain will massively skyrocket the debt even more (to think that George W. inherited an economy with a budget surplus and ruined it still pisses me off).Quote:
Hope is one thing, desperate as it may be after a year of empty grasping, gross hyperbole is another. This thread is turning into a shrine to peer pressure and confirmation bias, it is frankly a miracle noone has been so insipid as to start declaring Dubya preferable. Yet anyway.
I think his stats are more in the realm of 2/1/1. I've seen nothing that shown him having any military or diplomatic competence, undermining our military alliance and trade agreements wouldn't point to diplomatic skill. The two is really only there from his business experience which would transfer over to EU4's administrative though looking at the amount of unfilled vacancies perhaps that should be a 1 as well. What makes you think he's got military competency? He doesn't even know where his fleets (or should I say Armadas) are sailing though that would be the diplomatic side in EU4.Quote:
By the standards of 1455 to 1836 Trump thus far would be in the league of Henry VIII; 3/3/4
At least he's got Mattis boosting the Military (level 3), Tillerson isn't allowed to do much so he's base 1 level and Gary Cohn is competent though I personally don't like the tax plan (level 2 advisor).
I think little of his leadership so far. He was elected to 'drain the swamp' and get things done for American business and the working class.
So far, unlike Reagan, unlike Bush41, unlike Newt and the GOP House of 1995, Trump cannot get any meaningful legislation furthering his agenda through Congress. This INCLUDES an infrastructure improvement bill that everybody wants, nobody opposes, the country needs, and which will have enough bits of pork included to make it stall-proof. Not even in committee yet. We have one relatively conservative judge added to the SCOTUS. That's it.
The one thing Washington seems to agree on right now is the key thing is to sabotage anything useful to Trump's agenda. The GOP establishment will gladly trade lost seats in Nov18 in both houses in order to hang the loss on Trump's reputation and make it unlikely for him to repeat in 2020. The Dems agree with this whole-heartedly as well, since they have nada for meaningful national candidates at the moment and it helps them regain strength in Congress and ramp up for 2020. Trump has managed to bring bipartisanship back to DC by uniting them with the one common goal they can all believe in -- dumping Trump.
All this having been said, Trump simply isn't the ghastly horror story his critics make him out to be. He's just another "outsider" candidate who couldn't manage the Washington game well enough to achieve much. He won't be written of as one of our worst Presidents like Bucannnan or Harding or Grant, or our most ethically challenged like Nixon and he certainly won't join the pantheon of Presidential 'heroes."
This too shall pass.
The vague draft offered by the administration so far would have most functions or programs privatized, relies on the expectation that there are loads of private firms and entrepreneurs itching to build cheap and high-quality infrastructure all over the country, and holds little prospect for specific improvements or sustainable reforms. What no one opposes is the idea of an infrastructure bill - just like no one opposes the idea of a healthcare bill, or a tax reform bill, or a 'make all this :daisy: awesome' bill...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Trump does not have a legislative agenda. It is rather Trump (and his base) who are hindering the GOP's agenda. Which is mainly a good thing, as the GOP's agenda is outrageous.Quote:
The one thing Washington seems to agree on right now is the key thing is to sabotage anything useful to Trump's agenda.
But no one is sabotaging Trump other than the man himself, and potentially Putin.
The first part of the conclusion retains the fault of individualizing the Trump phenomenon to the man himself, and of ignoring his administration's effect on government, civil society, and people up to this day. The second part is just insulting.Quote:
All this having been said, Trump simply isn't the ghastly horror story his critics make him out to be. He's just another "outsider" candidate who couldn't manage the Washington game well enough to achieve much. He won't be written of as one of our worst Presidents like Bucannnan or Harding or Grant, or our most ethically challenged like Nixon and he certainly won't join the pantheon of Presidential 'heroes."
Those you name could of course be condemned as men of their time, for abuse or diffidence towards abuse of the comman man, women, and minorities - and of course universally for ordering or continuing the destruction and rapine of indigenous peoples. But judging all against Trump without the weight of hindsight on their shoulders, we already know that they stand above Trump (I'll give you Buchanan for now, though we would need to re-assess if Trump serves a full term).
Grant was arguably the best POTUS between Lincoln and T. Roosevelt. He managed to be the most important proponent of civil rights in the White House before at least FDR, and the biggest flaw in his Reconstruction policy was that it could not continue without his leadership. Harding was a failure due to negligence and incapacity, foisted upon the country by party elites. He was feckless but not malicious. Harding was just a better, more sensitive and reflective human being than Trump, and you don't need to set either of them against Grant to place him in standing with Marcus Aurelius.
Virtually the whole Trump administration is built upon nepotism and the spoils system (a noted target of Grant's administration, I might add). Malgovernance in Trump's circle is not considered an acceptable side effect of corruption, but the goal in itself, and the impact is to reduce America's wealth and standing now as well as to bleed it into the future. (Whether they're on Putin's payroll or they have an intrinsic ideological stance against effective custodial government, that is what's up.) Trump's negligence and incapacity are on their face much greater than any heretofore 'standard' corruption - this is a man who couldn't be trusted to run a hotdog stand at the best of times, and his associates tend to be little better - with heaps of perfidy ladled on as well. The Trump admin may yet one-up its predecessors for brazen peculation, and if so it will be among the least of its offenses.
And when we say the problem does not begin or end with the man or his administration, it is because the GOP as well as a large swath of the electorate are complicit. If Trump were to order the arrest of the whole Congress, and key federal judges and bureaucrats, derogate civil rights on grounds of national emergency, and declare himself President for Life, perhaps a fifth of the population would cheer him on. Impeachment is only a formality, not a restoration; the collapse is in progress.
Don't be complacent:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You made some good points. Most of my grief with Grant is the corruption in his administration. He himself was not a part of that nor were those policies he personally directed poorly chosen, as your examples illustrate.
We agree that Trump has no legislative agenda. I am simply appalled that nobody on the administration can get something so inherently bipartisan as the infrastructure stuff off the ground. He could have had his admin steer some decent items out there -- items that would make opposition look bad if they blocked him -- and has not done so.
His foreign policy isn't all that coherent either. Very much reactive so far, and this despite a clear kernel of support for renegotiating trade deals which SHOULD be at least vaguely in his area of competence.
I just cannot see "high crimes and misdemeanors" here. We have not used impeachment to overturn a national election unless it has truly reached a clearly criminal level on matters pertaining to the conduct of the office. Nixon rose to that level by personally involving himself in a cover-up of a crime perpetrated against political opponents. I do not believe we should overturn an election for lesser grounds (and the articles of impeachment against Johnson and Clinton were rightly quashed for that reason). In fact, the House's vote to impeach Clinton was stupid if they were not willing to assert that he had harried political opponents or the like (and he had not, it was all over civil matters).
Re. Grant: He made bad senior appointments in his first term and refused to directly control them, splitting the difference down the middle. Later he recognized his mistakes (admittedly he didn't quite get his White House in order) and began setting the stage for civil service reform, which finally began to reach fruition under the administration of Chester Arthur, one of Grant's allies. The opposing wing of the Republican Party made noises about reform and trumped up the corruption of Grant's administration (which pushed for affirmative action for blacks, Jews, and women in low-to-mid level appointments by the way), but these guys were plenty corrupt themselves and were more than anything interested in selling out Southern blacks to the Democrats in order to gain national prominence. I rely mostly on HW Brands' recent biography for my knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I think, used properly, impeachment (of the POTUS, not sure what the stats are for other offices) could stand to be more frequent than it has been. Clinton's missteps over Lewinsky were technically impeachable - it's just that they weren't (IMO) worth impeaching over.
I used the words "negligence, incapacity, perfidy" because these are the (dis)qualifying factors James Madison perceived during the Constitutional Convention.
This goes beyond literal crimes, and aside from the natural susceptibility to impeachment Trump carries by virtue of being unfit the second he took his oath, specific actions taken in sum over the course of the term so far constitute impeachable offenses (by no means exhaustive or directly related to Russia): from the diffuse like constant uninhibited lying on matters large and small; verbal attacks on the press, courts and other institutions; potential self/family enrichment or emoluments clause violations; to the systematic like advancing unqualified candidates on basis of personal loyalty; withholding candidates from offices without justification or reorganization; (as of now wholly speculative, or at least nascent) use of federal powers in voting oversight, on false pretenses of widespread fraud, to suppress the votes of political enemies; to the singular and autocratic like (apparently) firing an FBI director with intent to obstruct investigations into himself and associates; pardoning (and making a public show of it) a political ally, convicted of both criminal and civil contempt of court, before sentencing, appeal for clemency, and review of appeal (Frank Bowman at the previously-linked site impeachableoffenses.net argues that in our history of executive pardons only Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of Marc Rich comes even close in impropriety, and moreover the pardon of Marc Rich may also have been an impeachable offense); interfering with or indicating intent to interfere with the special counsel's investigation, such as publicly airing desire to fire the special counsel, or mooted replacement of the recused Attorney General to effect said firing, corroborated by other (now recent) statements expressing a desire to directly control the investigations of the Justice Department and FBI toward partisan ends.Quote:
Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.
...
Importantly, these fall into the three categories of bad behavior Madison listed, not being mere political disagreements, mistakes, or even plain bad policy. It's at the level of, "so far not a single member of the Trump administration has been found to be secretly working for the United States".
Finally, if we argue that Trump cannot be guilty of or accountable for any of the above or anything else not listed because he is simply too mentally incompetent or impaired - in such a case we cannot permit a mental incompetent to remain in office, and either impeachment or the 25th Amendment's provisions must be applied. So I think this is cornered.
It's critical that, of the five articles of impeachment put forward in the House Judiciary Committee at eve of Nixon's tenure, three were passed (with some difficulty; contemporary Republicans will be much more recalcitrant), and the second concerned "Abuse of Power". One clause was as follows:
Quote:
In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
@Montmorency:
Nice counter with the excerpt from Jemmy Madison.
I think it underscores, however, just how serious a breach of the trust of office is required for impeachment to be a valid option. Madison is indicating that there should be a mechanism for removal, but that reversing a decision of the electorate should only be done in the most grievous instances.
1. "Losing capacity after appointment." I think this would best be handled via the procedures outlined in the 25th. Despite the claims of his detractors, I have yet to see valid evidence that Trump is certifiably unstable or incapable of making a decision. A decision making style that emphasizes "going with your gut" is not a sign of incapacity.
2. "pervert [her or] his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression." First off, I just LOVE the phrasing on that. While I know that some of his detractors label him as racist etc. regarding Muslims and Latinos, I have not seen evidence of Trump's seeking to oppress any citizen's religious or civil rights. He has been adamant is his efforts to curtail illegal immigration which he views as an economic threat and he has been seeking ways to limit potential terrorists from entering the country. So far, his efforts have been ham-handed and have been blocked by the courts in many cases -- part of the reason we have the checks and balances in place -- but there is no evidence that the Trump administration is centered on graft or dedicated to racism and oppression.
3. "betray [her or] his trust to foreign powers." In the instance of the Trump campaign, it is becoming clear that the Russians were trying to play social media games and other influence strategies that would benefit Trump. In addition, members of the Trump campaign clearly met with persons who were connected to (and potentially in the indirect employ of) the Russians in order to obtain information that could be used to damage H. Clinton's campaign. I have yet to see evidence that Trump himself made any "deals" for support from Russia or encouraged his campaign staffers to do the same. Absent that direct participation, which would have given Putin leverage over him and met this Madisonian provision, I do not see anything impeachable here -- only evidence that calls into question the quality of the campaigns leadership staff. I note, however, that evidence that does meet this standard may exist. If that is found to be the case, it would rise to the level of impeachability in my eyes.
You go on to list a laundry list of the shortcomings and ethically challenged actions undertaken by Trump and/or his administration. You are, of course, well aware that other administrations from both parties have engaged in many of these same behaviors in the past without anyone suggesting they rose to the level of impeachability. Many of these political maneuverings -- hiring supporters who are less than ideally qualified for the position hired -- are almost legion and date to the founding of the republic. It's the less savory side of politics. I don't discount that these show poor leadership and weak ethics. I believe they constitute good reason to campaign against him and vote against him and his supporters in upcoming elections. I only question whether they rise to impeachability. I do not see an administration that has become the embodiment of "peculation or oppression," only a bad administration. As to the firing of Comey, that sort of thing tends to take care of itself. As Nixon found with his firing of Cox, the removal of someone leading an investigation at the President does NOT create a chilling effect on the investigation, but the reverse of same.
The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was blatant partisan politics. He was a Democrat heading a Republican-dominated government and they wanted him out. The articles under which he was impeached were laughably short of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" noted in the constitution itself or even the tripartite list you noted in Madison's explication.
The near impeachment of Richard Nixon started out somewhat partisan -- the liberal press corps had always loathed the man -- but evidence developed over time that clearly indicated that the President was aware of, and either authorized or participated in, cover up efforts and payoffs that were designed prevent the connection of his administration to crimes committed against Nixon's political opposition by persons affiliated with his re-election campaign. Partisanship faded in the face of evidence, and Nixon resigned in advance of what would have been his impeachment on AT LEAST one of the articles brought forward.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton was largely blatant partisan politics. Republicans had just regained power in the House after nearly 40 years and were almost immediately outmaneuvered politically by Clinton. Clinton got the HoR to shoulder the blame for a government shutdown. When the Starr investigation revealed evidence of perjury for the purpose of obstructing justice, the GOP pounced. While technically impeachable in that there was evidence that the President had very likely perjured himself before a grand jury -- only the most benign parsing of the language would suggest otherwise in the face of evidence uncovered thereafter -- NONE of Clinton's transgressions were connected with harming the political opposition or otherwise crossing the threshold of perverting the office. The GOP were idiots to push this and it was rightly quashed in the Senate.
You mention the Rich pardon as an impeachable offense. The timing of the pardon, of course, made this action 'unimpeachable' in a literal sense. I agree with you that that pardon was more of a breach of trust of the office than any of the crap with which they tried to officially impeach Bill Clinton. It was easily his most obvious abuse of power.
From the cautious perspective, Frank Bowman* above sees the Arpaio pardon (because of its nature, timing, and the way it was processed he argues it the most abusive POTUS pardon in history) as the "first verifiable impeachable offense". Also, precedent shows it is understood that a President acting from legitimate authority will not by that fact alone be acting unimpeachably (nor is it OK because "I'm the President"). The second he lists is related to Trump's (most?) recent flub, apparently "Mr. Trump’s efforts to induce federal law enforcement agencies to investigate his political enemies". If these are the most direct and discrete alleged (non-criminal) offenses in a legal construction, maybe we can focus our attention on them: are the charges correct on their face? Are they impeachable? Should any impeachment process ride on these alone?
For the rest you remain convinced an electoral remedy must be the appropriate one. You point to the historicity or prior manifestation of some of the charges, or in another form, but of course this raises the questions of, 'were indeed those instances (not) impeachable?' and 'have Trump administration analogs been more egregious, pernicious, or frequent?'
Part of the matter clearly has to do with different views of the necessary application or frequency of impeachment in politics, which we see the Founders were also divided on. That could be a subject for another thread: impeachment, what is it good for? It's a separate question from that of what can be argued in the existing framework.
The partisanship of the Clinton impeachment was demonstrated by the fact that they could find no other distinct charges to levy, and I'd be willing to own that some appropriate ones should have been conceivable under an expansive application of the impeachment power. The GOP Congress appeared more interested in posturing than genuinely removing a sitting President who had to be removed. If all this was impeachable conduct on Clinton's part, then it behooves the Congress to create a comprehensive case and not impeach on the basis of that single breach and fallout.
On the other hand, if impeachment were more institutionally frequent it would in turn be more damaging for the party or the Congress to 'come at the king' in a non-serious way - negating one avenue of partisan abuse...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki: Impeachment of Bill Clinton
*Your writing styles are similar enough to be in the same family, but you're not a lawyer. What's up with that?
We probably only get that once Mueller is offering his conclusions and recommendations. Meanwhile, the circumstantial evidence keeps piling up.Quote:
Absent that direct participation, which would have given Putin leverage over him and met this Madisonian provision, I do not see anything impeachable here -- only evidence that calls into question the quality of the campaigns leadership staff. I note, however, that evidence that does meet this standard may exist. If that is found to be the case, it would rise to the level of impeachability in my eyes.
For instance, the whole new development with Trump Jr. receiving and responding to Twitter PMs from Wikileaks (who were apparently very interested in maintaining a public appearance of impartiality) - deniability is there for the father, right?
Yet there are a number of tweets Big Trump sent that in timing and content seem awfully, coincidentally, directly prompted by the Wikileaks messages...
It looks especially bad given that elements or allies of the campaign were discussing the leaked emails among each other and with Wikileaks long before they were actually leaked. Increasingly the only deniability may lie in a defense centered on Trump's mental incapacity and susceptibility to manipulation (in which case none of the past few years' events should have been allowed to happen.)
If any element of culpable collusion is demonstrated, in combination with a history of financial crimes, the ideal punishment would be to strip all offenders of American citizenship and expropriate their assets. The first at least won't happen, since aside from whether it's even available as a punishment in the legal system it would surely violate international laws to make a citizen a stateless person (i.e. refugee) without their consent.* On the second, New York City could desperately use new public housing...
*This consideration wouldn't apply to those with dual citizenship or more
Again, Presidential pardons have been granted to people who were at divers stages in the judicial process and who were easily as motivated politically in character. Is this an abuse of the public trust at least to some extent? Yes. Does it rise to the impeachable? Probably not. The President can direct those agencies to begin an investigation -- they are functionaries of the branch of government he directs. He cannot dictate the results of that investigation. If clearly gratuitous in character, it would be actionable by the person investigated and they could claim redress of grievances. A bit tacky, short-sighted, and petty by Trump? Absolutely. Does it rise to the impeachable? Probably not. I suspect it would take a prolonged pattern of this type of misuse to clearly demonstrate a breach of trust rising to the level of impeachment. Of course, given a guy who behaves this pettily in the public forum, I cannot rule out the possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I'm an academic. You get used to writing stuff that you KNOW your peers are going to examine for any flaw or uncovered sub-point. Leads to a very controlled writing style in arguing. I suspect any similarity in style comes of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I am deeply distrustful of the bits and pieces leaked to the media and rabidly reported and re-reported. Most players in the Washington game, including special prosecutors, attempt to play the media to enhance leverage. The media, meanwhile, follows THEIR agenda, which is to highlight any and all possible conflicts because that is "sexy," garners ratings, and begets advertising dollars. Coupled with the fact that the clear majority of them are, personally, political liberals (USA def), and the small but persistent potential for subconscious bias against conservatism,* and you have quite a bit of potential for distortion and "trial by media" that isn't well grounded in fact. I strongly prefer to wait for the presentation of much more corroborated evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
*Too many USA conservatives react to this as though the bias in the media is a product of some kind of liberal cabal that is steering the agenda toward their "radiant future." This is rather silly and assumes a level of collusion that is every bit as "tinfoil hat" in quality as a number of the more thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories. Any bias is subtle, and unplanned, the result of assumptions and deeply held values that influence your thinking on a level so basic that they are rarely consciously considered. This kind of bias is almost unavoidable and is an inevitable part of qualitative research. I wish they'd acknowledge the possibility more clearly, and like the anthropologists in academe make a concerted effort to account for it in their analyses, but, I fear, that's a bit too much to ask of such deadline-driven folks.
As an aside, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness says:
And the US doesn't seem to be signatory anyway, so full steam ahead.Quote:
Contracting States shall not deprive people of their nationality so as to render them stateless. (Exceptions: where otherwise provided in the Convention; where nationality has been acquired by misrepresentation or fraud; disloyalty to the Contracting State).
Totally irrelevant for the discussion but it's simply true, Kim Ju On may have scored a hole in one the first time he played golf, and MAYBE@Y he could drive a when he was 3 years old but the latter part is questionable because he IS short and fat. It's probably not true that he could drive a car when he was 3 years old, his legs wouldn't be long enough to press the pedals, wth? Trump is a visionary
https://i.imgur.com/NVER29L.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Still doesn't fit
Facts:
Functional dictator and son of same.
Both following the Stalinist "cult of personality" playbook.
So:
Incredibly young driving skills suffices as his Bucephalus story.
Hole-in-one suffices as his Cuchulainn "first time hurling" story.
The Great Leader must evince great signs when young. These signs of greatness mark him as different -- a somehow superior -- being and thus justify the singular position, treatment, and power he now wields.
So these are not unimportant....'facts.'
A pedophile is better than a liberal in Alabama according to Trump.
Conservatives have been successfully tricked into thinking liberals are the biggest threat to America.
At this point there is nothing our institutions can do to rectify this issue. If enough of the public continue to think 50% of the country is an enemy, we will not be a great country for much longer.
We can only hope that Roy Moore loses to Doug Jones and helps wake the Republicans up to the danger that the fringe of the party is pulling them toward.
You could just split it into "liberal hellhole" and "conservative hellhole", where in one people are required to undergo mandatory HRT and the other one engages in trial by ordeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Would probably get it for my own collection based on that video if I found it cheap. If played in a jokey manner like they did, it seems to work really well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
Looks like tax reform is going to be the GOP's "hill to die on"
The tactic of ignoring Trump's problems, ignoring Moore's problems and basically sailing on like all is normal could result in some blowback.
At least when Bush screwed over the country he could wrap himself in the flag (war on terror and all that) Trump has barely a fig-leaf to obscure his gift to himself and the "donor class" in America.
The game entered the market 28 years too early.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Even if cheap, you'd literally give Trump your money, more money... :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar