US Politics Thread 2016-2020 [Archive] - Page 28

Rockstar

03-01-19, 10:25 AM

I guess this tends to happen when the only platform you're running on is party first and get Trump.

hat tip: Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post Published 7:06 pm CST, Thursday, February 28, 2019

WASHINGTON - House Democrats exploded in recriminations Thursday over moderates bucking the party, with liberal Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatening to put those voting with Republicans "on a list" for a primary challenge.
In a closed-door session, a frustrated Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., lashed out at about two dozen moderates and pressured them to get on board. "We are either a team or we're not, and we have to make that decision," Pelosi said, according to two people present but not authorized to discuss the remarks publicly.

But Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the unquestioned media superstar of the freshman class, upped the ante, admonishing the moderates and indicating that she would help liberal activists unseat them in the 2020 election.
Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, said she told her colleagues that Democrats who side with Republicans "are putting themselves on a list."
"She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they're going to want a list of names and she's going to give it to them," Trent said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Triggering the blowup was Wednesday's votes on a bill to expand federal background checks for gun purchases. Twenty-six moderate Democrats joined Republicans in amending the legislation, adding a provision requiring that ICE be notified if an undocumented immigrant seeks to purchase a gun.
That infuriated liberals who have railed against ICE's role in conducting mass deportations and embarrassed Democratic leaders who couldn't keep their members in line on a high-profile bill.
The Democratic infighting reflects a fractured caucus and diverse freshman class, with dozens of moderates elected in districts that President Donald Trump won in 2016 at odds with hard-charging liberals. The split has exposed divisions among Pelosi and her top lieutenants, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., over the party strategy to keep its newfound majority.
Republicans have capitalized on the divide, using legislative tactics to split politically vulnerable moderates from the party leadership. In the coming months, votes on health care, the environment and spending bills could cause more extreme breaks in the Democratic ranks.
While the party's left wing has gotten outsize attention for its aggressive moves to push Democrats in that direction, the splinter faction is made up of the party's moderates - many of them freshmen taking their first congressional votes.
They insist that they are not going to be dissuaded from voting with their districts, and many are warning that majority control is at stake.
"It's this class of members that got elected that are the reason we have the majority," said Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., a co-chairwoman of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition. "Many of them come from these (moderate) districts, and their promise to their constituents was that they were going to put people over politics."
Inside the Democratic meeting, one of those freshmen - Rep. Xochitl Torres Small. D-N.M. - reacted sharply to Ocasio-Cortez's comments and rose to urge her colleagues to respect the political reality of representing a swing district, according to people present. A spokesman for Torres Small did not respond to a request for comment.
Several are also pushing to reform or eliminate the procedural tactic that has prompted the uproar - the "motion to recommit," which essentially gives the minority party one final opportunity to amend a bill moments before it comes up for a final vote.
Pelosi trained much of her closed-door frustrations on veteran lawmakers, noting that some held seats on coveted committees. "What is this?" she asked, according to the aides.
Later, when one lawmaker talked about the peril of persistently voting with party leaders on these motions, Pelosi responded that the party stood ready to help team players: "We have a massive M.A.S.H. operation, and, frankly, it should be there for those who have the courage to take the vote."
Publicly and privately, Pelosi has urged members to treat the Republican motions as procedural feints that should be routinely ignored. "Vote no - just vote no," she told reporters Thursday, "because the fact is, a vote yes is to give leverage to the other side." But Hoyer and Clyburn believe that is untenable when Republicans stand ready to use those votes as political cudgels against vulnerable Democrats.
Republicans, during their eight-year majority that ended in January, maintained remarkable discipline on these procedural votes. Democrats did not pass a single one from 2011 through 2018. But Democrats have already lost two this year, and during their previous majority from 2007 through 2010, they lost about 1 in 5.
"The fact of the matter is, it didn't affect our ability to pass substantive legislation that was very positive and had a positive effect on the American people," Hoyer said, recalling the last Democratic majority and playing down the importance of those votes.
But others say routine Democratic defections threaten to have more serious consequences when the party considers more sensitive bills - and perhaps has a Democratic Senate and president to pass them into law. Already some said they are fretting about the possibility of more Republican mischief.
"People need to be aware that coming down the road will be gotcha amendments that actually gut the bill, and if we want to be able to move legislation forward, we're going to have to figure out a way to deal with it," said House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
The philosophical differences between the three leaders have frustrated some incoming freshmen, who are already bewildered by the practice of voting on the surprise Republican amendments. Members typically have a few minutes' notice before having to cast votes on motions that, in recent practice, are crafted to be as politically uncomfortable as possible for the majority party.
"We hear lots of different things from lots of different members of our leadership about their views on this issue, and they should get together and figure it out," said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.
A few Democrats said Thursday that the motion to recommit should be jettisoned entirely.
"It's archaic, it's ridiculous, and it only shows our stupidity that we still have it," said Rep. Juan Vargas, D-Calif.
But others in party leadership were more wary of eroding one of the few tools handed to the minority in an institution where the majority typically enjoys absolute power. "What goes around comes around - you have to keep that in mind," McGovern said.
Hoyer has offered support for changing the procedure surrounding motions to recommit, giving members more time to review the minority amendment. But Democratic leaders have made no final decision about whether to pursue that, and lawmakers left Washington on Thursday, saying only that there will be further conversations about it.
Republican leaders, meanwhile, warned against changes. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters on Thursday that changes "would be a nuclear option" and "would leave a stain on this majority just two months in."
"Never once did we discuss, did we bring up the option or even entertain the idea," McCarthy said about the GOP's past majority. "Less than 60 days into a majority, they want to silence a minority? That is wrong."

u crank

03-01-19, 10:43 AM

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatening to put those voting with Republicans "on a list" for a primary challenge.

:haha:

I would be surprised if she is not on a list of people to get primary challengers in 2020.:yep:

Georg Lassen

03-01-19, 01:10 PM

Marxists gathering lists, what could go wrong. :yeah:

Many latino imigrants come from countries that where Soviet laboratories, not all are running from the marxists, some intend to spread it to USA.

vienna

03-04-19, 08:48 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp8kFqycfFM

<O>

AVGWarhawk

03-05-19, 03:50 PM

:haha:

I would be surprised if she is not on a list of people to get primary challengers in 2020.:yep:

She does not qualify due to her age.

u crank

03-05-19, 04:03 PM

She does not qualify due to her age.

I meant in her own district.

Onkel Neal

03-05-19, 09:48 PM

For god's sake, the mainstream media has completely dropped any pretense of journalism.

vienna

03-05-19, 10:45 PM

The only problem with that argument is there is more than ample evidence of Trump's kids getting highly irregular and highly suspect treatment when it comes to security clearances. In a post a couple of years ago, I raised the question of persons who would not be able to get a routine security clearance, much less a clearance at the level required to operate in the White House, either being elected to or appointed to office and how such a situation would, could or should be handled; in fact, IIRC, the post also raised the issue of possible foreign influence on such a person in just such a situation. Kusnher has, in fact, submitted at least three, if not more, separate applications; his first had very serious omissions and/or outright false statements and had to be "amended" by the subsequent applications, with each subsequent application being an "amendment" of the prior. The law on security applications is very clear: knowingly omitting pertinent information and/or knowingly making false statements is a Federal crime; there have been many reports citing persons who have gone through the clearance process who affirm the requirements are very explicit and hard to miss; they also affirm the form(s) warn that any omission and/or false statement is punishable by at least 5 (five) years in prison; further none of the persons cited could recall any situation where a person had been permitted to make a third, or more, application. The only reasonable conclusion is Kushner's application(s) were allowed to go around the stringent requirements for top security clearances by the exertion of influence from a higher level; given that Kushner is the Senior Adviser to the POTUS ,and answerable only to the POTUS, Trump must have had some hand in contravening the law as set forth. The same situation applies to Ivanka, Eric, Don Jr,, et al: the only reasonable conclusion is Trump had a hand in their getting clearances they, under law, are not entitled to hold...

<O>

ikalugin

03-06-19, 02:39 AM

Isn't security clearance, ultimately, determined by POTUS?

Dowly

03-06-19, 05:07 AM

Isn't security clearance, ultimately, determined by POTUS?Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

ikalugin

03-06-19, 05:22 AM

Well it is his prerorgative to choose who advises him. And I would be more concerned with what Bolton does rather than what Ivanka does.

Onkel Neal

03-06-19, 06:36 AM

Mr Quatro

03-06-19, 08:45 AM

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

But Trump does have that right ... the real problem was that it was his son-in-law. Do you think for one minute the opposition is going to let that go?

Well it is his prerorgative to choose who advises him. And I would be more concerned with what Bolton does rather than what Ivanka does.

Bolton deserves his own thread and yes I agree he is more of a problem. I can't believe anyone would listen to his angry rhetoric

Sorry, that was not my point. I'm not talking about clearance for Ivanka, I'm saying the incessant negative coverage of Trump is absurd. Every day news outlets like CNN plaster their leads with Trump did this and Trump said that -- all from a negative perspective, of course. It's simply ridiculous. Trump is not doing nearly enough to be that newsworthy, there are other things happening in the world.

It's so bad I can only scan CNN and MSNBC long enough to get the drift that it is all anti-Trump. :yep:

u crank

03-06-19, 09:55 AM

vienna

03-06-19, 04:53 PM

Sorry, that was not my point. I'm not talking about clearance for Ivanka, I'm saying the incessant negative coverage of Trump is absurd. Every day news outlets like CNN plaster their leads with Trump did this and Trump said that -- all from a negative perspective, of course. It's simply ridiculous. Trump is not doing nearly enough to be that newsworthy, there are other things happening in the world.

My mistake; I saw the headline in the pic and thought that was the point...

Let's face it: the media, of any stripe, will always go with what their audience wants to see/read/hear. If a celebrity does something heinous, then you'll see all sorts of coverage of that story; its just the old "if it bleeds, it leads" news philosophy. During Obama's terms, and during Clinton's terms, the GOP got plenty of coverage for their attacks and criticisms, all via the dreaded and reviled "mainstream media". Trump, whether you like him or not, is the biggest story out there, so that is what you're going to see/read/hear about far more in the coverage...

Trump actually is the biggest contributor to the great wash of news coverage; his inane and self-incriminating tweets, his baiting of the media, his manic obsession with being the center of attention, all serve to feed the beast. As far as, negative coverage is concerned regarding Trump, he has given more than adequate grist by his lackings, failings, missteps, and obstinate inability to even consider actually make an effort to establish a stable, sensible administration. The media is not creating Trump's miseries: that responsibility lays squarely on his back. The media did not make Trump make hush money payments, did not make Trump take economic actions that are now coming back to bite him, the media did not make Trump appoint and surround himself with people who are among the worst seen in the White House in modern memory, the Media did not make Trump act like a spoiled toddler. Negative coverage? Well, lets see what has happened under Trump over the last 48 hours: the trade deficit has reached record levels; the budget deficit has increased by 77% and is still climbing; two more Trump appointees (FDA Chief Gottlieb, DOJ Former Acting AG Whitaker) have abruptly left the administration; Trump is likely to lose the Senate vote on his faux emergency; and, Trump's decisions to grant questionable security clearances is again an issue. Nowhere in any of these, and more, of Trump's failings is there any indication any of the media is actually responsible for any of it; although he would probably try to dodge it, the buck actually does stop at Trump (maybe he can tray to claim bone spurs... :D )...

And trump adds to his own miseries. Bill Clinton was smart enough to just keep mum about the Starr investigation(s) and let it play out; Trump seemingly cannot control his twitter diarrhea nor control his mouth runoff and just provides further fodder (or is is further farther?) for the media: if you don't want the media to quote you, just say nothing and do the job(s) your office entails. That last point has some irony: the Trump camp seems to now be taking the tack of saying the DEMs should abandon their investigations and "just do their jobs". Pot and kettles?...

The "non-mainstream" media seems to be in a quandary of their own. Seemingly unable to defend Trump and his minions on their merits, they resort to dragging out the same old whipping boys: "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."...

Yeah, but what about the failures of Trump's economic policies? "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."...

Yeah, but what about the failures of Trump's foreign policies? "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."...

Yeah, but what about the failures of Trump's administration appointees and their scandals? "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."...

Yeah, but what about (insert anything Trump would rather we didn't know about here)? "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."...

No substance, no rational response, nothing; just more of the same old deflections...

If negative coverage disturbs, a possible solution may be to just ignore it; a channel can be changed, a page turned. I prefer to look for a source article that gives the most actual detail of the core issue(s) with the minimum of editorializing/opinionation, and go from there just ignoring other articles that just seem to be a parroting of or a cherry-picking of details from the greater source. Then, I a bit of due diligence: I actually seek out opposing articles and see if they can give factual arguments, with backup, to refute the main assertions, also with the minimum of editorializing/opinionation.

Then, I do something even more radical: I make up my own mind. I know, I know, its easier to be spoon fed opinions that appear to match one's own, and its easier than actually finding out the actual facts. But when I make up my own mind, its mine and not the dictate of a party, press, candidate, official, or anyone else; its mine an I fully own it and take responsibility for it...

Gee, responsibility; if that catches on, we might actually one day have a truly functioning government...

<O>

Dowly

03-07-19, 04:08 AM

Trump actually is the biggest contributor to the great wash of news coverage; his inane and self-incriminating tweets, his baiting of the media, his manic obsession with being the center of attention, all serve to feed the beast. As far as, negative coverage is concerned regarding Trump, he has given more than adequate grist by his lackings, failings, missteps, and obstinate inability to even consider actually make an effort to establish a stable, sensible administration.
Exactly this.

And the sad fact is, much of the stuff that is reported using anonymous sources for example, is something that is wholly believable when it comes to Trump. Not because of the media painting him one way, but because he has been caught in a lie over and over and over again. If Trump says something didn't happen, there's a very good chance that it did happen.

Onkel Neal

03-07-19, 06:38 AM

u crank

03-07-19, 06:58 AM

Well if there was any doubt that the left leaning MSM is in bed with the DNC this should put that accusation into clear focus. The Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez has announced that Fox News Channel will not be in the running to televise any of its candidate debates during the 2019-2020 cycle.

The Democratic National Committee has decided to exclude Fox News Channel from televising any of its candidate debates during the 2019-2020 cycle as a result of published revelations detailing the cable network’s close ties to the Trump administration.

In a statement Wednesday, DNC Chairman Tom Perez cited a story in the New Yorker magazine this week that detailed how Fox has promoted President Trump’s agenda. The article, titled “The Making of the Fox News White House,” suggested that the news network had become a “propaganda” vehicle for Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/democratic-national-committee-rejects-fox-news-for-debates-citing-new-yorker-article/2019/03/06/a0bdf55c-402e-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html?utm_term=.3138692bd0cf

Perez's statement is laughable. As is the case so often what you accuse others of is something you are guilty of. The cosy relationship between Democrats and CNN and MSNBC is obvious. One has to wonder what the DNC is afraid of. Would Fox News people ask questions that the DNC doesn't want asked of their candidates?

This is also a mistake that will effect the Dem candidates. What they want and need is a wide exposure for the eventual winner. Shutting out a major news network is denying that candidate that platform. But it also points to a increasingly obvious characteristic of both political parties. They both have allies in the media and they both like an echo chamber to push their agenda. The DNC's decision makes that very clear.

vienna

03-07-19, 05:01 PM

Thanks for the reply, vienna. That was interesting.

Opponents to Trump 2020 (so far)
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/potential-2020-candidates-stand-midterms/story?id=59316177

Remember the Republicans running in 2016? They had so many they had two tiers of debates? Looks like the Dems have their own candidate clown car.

Cory Booker (D), a U.S. senator from New Jersey, announced that he was running for president on February 1, 2019.[5]
Pete Buttigieg (D), the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, announced that he was running for president on January 23, 2019.[6]
Julian Castro (D), a former U.S. secretary of housing and urban development and San Antonio mayor, formally announced his candidacy on January 12, 2019.[7]
John Delaney (D), a former U.S. representative from Maryland, filed to run for president on August 10, 2017.
Tulsi Gabbard (D), a U.S. representative from Hawaii, announced that she had decided to run for president on January 11, 2019.[8]
Kirsten Gillibrand (D), a U.S. senator from New York, announced that she was running for president on January 15, 2019.[9]
Kamala Harris (D), a U.S. senator from California, announced that she was running for president on January 21, 2019.[10]
John Hickenlooper (D), a former governor of Colorado, announced that he was running for president on March 4, 2019.[1]
Jay Inslee (D), the governor of Washington, announced that he was running for president on March 1, 2019.[11]
Amy Klobuchar (D), a U.S. senator from Minnesota, formally announced she was running for president on February 10, 2019.[12]
Bernie Sanders (I), a U.S. senator from Vermont, announced that he was running for president on February 19, 2019.[3]
Elizabeth Warren (D), U.S. senator from Massachusetts, announced she had formed an exploratory committee on December 31, 2018.[13] She formally announced she was running for president on February 9, 2019.
Bill Weld (R), a former governor of Massachusetts, announced that he had formed an exploratory committee on February 15, 2019.[4]
Marianne Williamson (D), an author and lecturer, announced she was running for president on January 28, 2019.[14]
Andrew Yang (D), an entrepreneur and author from New York, filed to run for president on November 6, 2017. Free money for everyone!

I added that last bit but it's true. :)

In 2016, the GOP had the Clown Car. In 2020, it will be the DEMs with the Clown Car. However, a few points need to be considered that make the 2020 situation for the DEMs different than the 2016 GOP situation...

First is the way delegates are apportioned by each party. The GOP has mainly a 'winner-takes-all' setup for the state votes in the Primaries; only a few states have proportional allocation of delegates to the candidates; this means, in almost all cases, the GOP candidate who gets the most votes (not necessarily the majority of the votes) cast in a given state's primary receives all of the delegates from that state at the National Convention; gaming this process is how Trump was able to amass such a high delegate count; in fact, more primary votes were cast for GOP candidates other than Trump, overall, than he actually received...

The DEM primary process is very different. The DEMs have a proportional system for their primaries: the candidates get a share of the delegates at the National Convention based on the percentage of the votes, in each state; if a candidate gets 25% of a state's primary votes, they get 25% of the delegates; if they get 47% of the votes, they get 47% of the delegates. Gaming the primaries is a non-issue under the proportional system...

There are some exceptions to the 'winner-takes-all' and proportional setups used by the parties in the allocation of delegates, but they haven't really had a marked impact on past primary results and allocations...

Secondly, the structure of the Primaries has shifted. The two most populous states, California and Texas are going to be present in the so-called "Super Tuesday" primary date when several states all hold their primaries at the same time; CA had been holding its primaries very late into the primary season, in June in 2016, and the state's impact on the parties' delegate allocation process had been diluted. In 2020, with CA and TX both voting at the same time, and representing, together, about 21% of the US population, their impact could be significant. Added to this is both states are Open Primary states meaning voters can vote across party lines, if they choose. This all means the sort of long term gaming tactics used in 2016 will be curtailed in 2020; if a candidate doesn't make a strong showing in the "Super Tuesday" primaries in 202, there will be no chance to 'make up' for a deficit by hoping for a better showing in CA later in the primary season...

California will put the super in 2020’s Super Tuesday primary --

https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/01/23/california-will-put-the-super-in-2020s-super-tuesday-primary/

Thirdly, there is the nature of the parties' national conventions. For the GOP in 2020, the party might have to back Trump again, if he wins in the primaries (and if he is not impeached and/or resigns) and, again he will have some gaming wriggle-room. A wild card in the GOP situation is the possibility of a large enough segment of disaffected GOP members who might want to try to run a candidate against Trump. The DEMs, with their proportional system, may find themselves facing a floor battle at their convention, if two, or more, DEM candidates split the delegate count with no clear majority...

It is going to be interesting, in a couple of years...

<O>

mapuc

03-07-19, 05:16 PM

@ vienna

"the party might have to back Trump again, if he wins in the primaries"

In the history of the US politics, have it ever happened that a party have withdrawn their support to the sitting President ? Not supporting him for a second term in the White House ?

Markus

vienna

03-07-19, 05:28 PM

Not in modern US political history (1900 to date). Found this article that may help to explain how such a situation might work:

No sitting president in the modern era has ever been successfully “primaried” — meaning that he ran for and lost his party’s nomination to run for a second term. (Some variant of it happened to several presidents during the 19th century).

That does not mean that incumbents are immune and can ignore the threat. A strong challenge from within his own party helped convince President Lyndon Johnson not to seek reelection in 1968. Strong challenges from within the party contributed to the eventual general election defeats of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. Presidents who did win reelection took care to protect their flank and head off any pesky challenges.

Could Donald Trump Lose in the GOP Primaries? --

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/18/could-donald-trump-lose-in-the-gop-primaries/

Of the pre-1900 Presidents who failed to get their party's nomination to continue in office, they were all, interestingly, persons who came to office not by election, but by succession when the sitting President died in office:

When Has A President Been Denied His Party's Nomination? --

https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/07/a_president_denied_renominatio.html

I hope you find this useful...

<O>

JU_88

03-07-19, 06:00 PM

mapuc

03-07-19, 06:17 PM

@ vienna

Thank you very interesting read.

As I understand it has only been one President who wasn't nominated by his party for a second term?
That was Franklin Pierce, the 14th president, who was elected as a Democrat in 1852.

The big question is...will history repeat itself..?

Markus

vienna

03-07-19, 06:49 PM

Yes, you are correct. I had meant to note the Pierce exception when I said "all" the pre-1900 President's who were denied a nomination were not elected to office, but I neglected to make that notation; the road to misunderstanding is paved with good intentions and bad notations... :03: :D

Could history repeat itself? Depends on Trump's actions in the future and the course of pending investigations; even if he is not formally charged with 'crimes and misdemeanors' prior to 2020 and chooses to stand for re-election, if Trump continues on his seemingly self-destructive course, the GOP leadership may themselves facing an electorate not willing to endure more of the same; there are also a good many in the party who are not keen on casting their lot on such an unstable candidate; they might be inclined to mount a mutiny in the ranks and run a candidate more appealing to the Centrist GOP and Independent voters the GOP will need in order to hold power; Independents now account for more voter registrations than either of the two main parties...

<O>

Mr Quatro

03-07-19, 06:58 PM

Abit OT but I just visited the US the other week, for about a week. (California) San Francisco, and then Yosemite via Methtown (Fresno). So yeah, not one MAGA hat spotted obviously.

Just thought id share what I learned.

It takes ages to get anywhere because your country is too damn freaking massive.
Your restaurant food and beer is usually :up:
Amtrak is slow but comfortable, spacious, clean and nice staff, so its actually a really nice ride :up:
Greyhound is not so hot, - nose pegs required if you sit near the back.
Your Uber drivers are better than the UK's. or should I say Korea's, because most of them are Korean in SF.
SF was impressive, Golden gate - quite mind blowing,
SF has a massive homeless problem.
Getting in and out of Yosemite in winter is expensive and suicidal, but completely worth it. Nothing short of bloody amazing.
Downtown Fresno.... probably not someplace I want to hang around in for too long (as a tourist) - but not that bad either.
You need to export flaming hot cheetos to the UK.

even if your OT was OT at least it was a good report about America ... I love America, but I've only been to a few countries like Spain and Mexico and the Caribbean.

Amtrak is nice and the views of the coast line of California are worth it ... :yep:

San Francisco has more than a street person problem they even have a millionaire problem.:o

Flaming hot Cheetos have msg in them read the fine print :yep:

Thank you for your report :up:

vienna

03-07-19, 07:07 PM

...

Downtown Fresno.... probably not someplace I want to hang around in for too long (as a tourist) - but not that bad either.

...

Fresno is basically someplace you go through to get to someplace else. Back in the early 70s, I had a brief job co-driving moving vans between SF and LA; the first time I went through Fresno, in the dead of night, I noted to the other driver, more experienced than myself, a building in the center of town that was surrounded by a very large number of women, even at that wee hour. He said the building was a hotel and those were, of course the 'working girls' plying their trade; I remember he called the hotel the "VD Hilton"...

...

You need to export flaming hot cheetos to the UK.

....

No, they're all ours, ya can't have 'em...

...and, besides, there are probably laws regarding the export of highly hazardous materials...

<O>

JU_88

03-07-19, 07:08 PM

Flaming hot Cheetos have msg in them read the fine print :yep:

Thanks for your feedback :)
Now i don't have a packet to hand as i'm back home, so what i did i miss?,
a quick google search and i got something on them turning kids stools red so parents are taking their kids to ER thinking its blood - is it related to that?
if so, that's fine, they go too well will beer for me to care :haha:

No, they're all ours, ya can't have 'em...
Oh go on, we are your closest-ish ally :O: Will send you some marmite :haha:
Thanks for the Fresno history lesson :)

JU_88

03-07-19, 07:11 PM

Double post - sorry mods!

Onkel Neal

03-07-19, 07:17 PM

In 2016, the GOP had the Clown Car. In 2020, it will be the DEMs with the Clown Car. However, a few points need to be considered that make the 2020 situation for the DEMs different than the 2016 GOP situation...

The DEM primary process is very different. The DEMs have a proportional system for their primaries: the candidates get a share of the delegates at the National Convention based on the percentage of the votes, in each state; if a candidate gets 25% of a state's primary votes, they get 25% of the delegates; if they get 47% of the votes, they get 47% of the delegates. Gaming the primaries is a non-issue under the proportional system...

Don' forget the biggest difference: the DNC actually picks the winner in the end. they rig their process. Jus ask Bernie.:haha:

JU_88

03-07-19, 07:22 PM

Poor old Bernie, first he got stitched up by Clinton and co, and now he is getting stitched up by inter sectional identity politics (which he did dabble with until he realized it was a fatal mistake).
Hes too fringe for the old Skool Dems, Too old, white and male for many of the new ones.

vienna

03-07-19, 07:43 PM

Don' forget the biggest difference: the DNC actually picks the winner in the end. they rig their process. Jus ask Bernie.:haha:

The big difference for the GOP is the 'winner-takes-all'; that system is ridiculously easy to 'game' and, for the GOP, usually has resulted in the RNC pet candidate getting the nomination. What happened in 2016 was the GOP leadership didn't think Trump was a viable threat to be dealt with; desperately needing to keep the more 'wingnut' segments of the party in line, they gave Trump a long leash and he came back to bite him. Remember, even against a very poor candidate like Hillary, Trump got beat in the popular election by some 3 million votes. It was mainly due to Clinton also not taking Trump as a serious threat that also cause her not to campaign in several of the 'swing' states, losing her the Electoral College. Trump wasn't the best candidate in 2016, and, as events have unfolded since, he has not gained at all as a candidate; there's also the case to be made that whoever the DEMs run in 2020, the DEM Party will not allow their candidate to make the same mistakes(s) Clinton made...

AS for Bernie, I kinda think he's had his day in the sun. There's still nearly two years to go till the 2020 election and I have a feeling he, along with not a few of the DEM hopefuls/possibles being handicapped in the press at this time, will be less of an influence than they are now; and the incessant GOP baiting of a 'socialist/liberal' swing to the DEMs could also backfire on them and cause the DEM Party to field a more centrist candidate more appealing to the wider voter population. This also goes back to Mapuc's inquiries: if the DEMs do run a candidate with wider appeal, would the RNC counter by a mutiny against Trump and field their own more center candidate in Trump's place?...

<O>

JU_88

03-07-19, 08:09 PM

and the incessant GOP baiting of a 'socialist/liberal' swing to the DEMs could also backfire on them and cause the DEM Party to field a more centrist candidate more appealing to the wider voter population.
<O>

Quite plausible - but the question is, who? :Kaleun_Wink:
Ill just add that 'half term' presidency cycles seem to be pretty rare the past few decades, Bush Sr being the last one.

u crank

03-07-19, 08:37 PM

...would the RNC counter by a mutiny against Trump and field their own more center candidate in Trump's place?...

I'm gonna say no for a number of reasons but the main one is Trump's base which hasn't gone south yet and probably won't. According to an NBC News–Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday Trump enjoys an 88 percent approval rating among Republicans. There is a lot of bad news in that poll for Trump but going against that kind of base support would be suicide for the party.

and the incessant GOP baiting of a 'socialist/liberal' swing to the DEMs could also backfire on them and cause the DEM Party to field a more centrist candidate more appealing to the wider voter population

And of course the Dems have their own problems. A war is brewing between the moderates and the new hard lefties. The hard left/progressive wing of the party had to take it on the chin once when the DNC anointed their preferred candidate. Hard to say how they would react this time but I don't think it will be good. I hope CNN and MSNBC are up to the challenge. :03:

vienna

03-07-19, 10:06 PM

I'm gonna say no for a number of reasons but the main one is Trump's base which hasn't gone south yet and probably won't. According to an NBC News–Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday Trump enjoys an 88 percent approval rating among Republicans. There is a lot of bad news in that poll for Trump but going against that kind of base support would be suicide for the party.

...

That's going on the assumption the base will hold. Nixon also had a firm base and polled well among GOP voters up until Watergate made Nixon untenable to the Party and his base and support dissolved; the fallout was such that Ford, who other than pardoning Nixon, really didn't have a whole lot of negatives, did not enjoy any of the benefits of the then GOP 'base'. If Trump is impeached or resigns, and if he pardons himself or if Pence pardons Trump, there might be an equivalent defection as with Nixon/Ford...

Also, the core base, those who are not voting GOP because they don't like a DEM candidate or just because they habitually vote for whoever the GOP runs, is only about roughly 32%-34% of the total registered electorate and it's kinda hard to win with only about a third of the vote...

There is also recent history to consider: the midterms saw the GOP take a real slap to the face when they lost the House and saw a very large number of areas they thought were secure become nail-biting races; and that reversal came only two years into Trump's terrm; such a situation usually only occurs in the second term midterms when the voters have six years to develop any distaste for and administration and its party; could they also suffer from such defections of support in 2020? And the House races are very significant in that they are 'closer to the ground' in terms of measuring voter sentiment; for the DEMs to take back about 10% of the total House seats in 2016 seems to indicate the natives are restless and unhappy...

If the GOP has to field an alternative candidate, who would it be? Maybe someone I find to be viable as someone not a wingnut, but not so centrist as to alienate the Far Righter, yet with an image of stability that may appeal to Independents like myself: Paul Ryan leaps to mind. Depending on who eventually ends up driving the DEM clown car, I could see myself voting for him...

...

And of course the Dems have their own problems. A war is brewing between the moderates and the new hard lefties. The hard left/progressive wing of the party had to take it on the chin once when the DNC anointed their preferred candidate. Hard to say how they would react this time but I don't think it will be good. I hope CNN and MSNBC are up to the challenge. :03:

I think too much is being made of the DEM Left; they make the most noise, and get a lot of the media attention, but do they really hold as much sway as the GOP wants voters to believe? The DEM Left was just as active and visible in 2016, but in the end they were all "sound and fury, signifying nothing". The DEMs knew a Bernie wouldn't be palatable to a broad spectrum of voters and scuttled him; a wise move. I think, as with the GOP 2016 'clown car', a lot of the less acceptable DEM candidates wil be weeded out; Bernie is a non-starter (age and the stigma of a 'loser') and a lot of the others will either dropout once they realize the DEM voters don't give a rat's about their running or they will just not have enough resources to sustain a full run. The key element is the large possibility of a dark horse getting the nod, much in the way Obama got his nomination...

Once Super Tuesday is over the vision will be clearer. Now all we really have is a lot of chatter and smoke and mirrors. Things and people worried about with such fervor now may turn out to be "sound and fury, signifying nothing"...

(Shakespeare quotes: just tryin' ta give a lil' cultcha and class to the thread and us mugs... :D)

<O>

u crank

03-08-19, 07:48 AM

I think too much is being made of the DEM Left;

Possibly. But it isn't the stated position of the candidate that matters here. It may be the necessity to defend certain hard left positions by moderate (or so that they claim to be) candidates that will be a problem. Failure to do so could be an issue . The Democratic party has to appeal to an ever increasing broad base of special interest groups. The GOP doesn't have that problem.

The Democratic party has a clear path to victory in 2020. Trump's numbers right now do not suggest his reelection but then there are the incredibly stupid things that the Dems do. And they just keep doing them. Their increasingly extreme position on abortion is one. A large part of their base is African American and Latino. That is evangelical Christian or Roman Catholic and they are usually opposed to abortion or at least the extreme measures passed by some states recently. That will leave Democratic Presidential candidates possibly having to defend those positions and risk offending those voters. Most polls show about 60 percent of Americans support abortion in the first trimester. But the numbers drop off significantly for second and third term abortions. Just 28 and 13 percent. And you can bet that Trump and the GOP candidates will remind voters of that and who voted how on that issue.

Then there is the recent antisemitism debacle going on right now. Pretty awkward to say the least. Nancy Pelosi and some Dem Presidential candidates have actually defended Rep. Ilhan Omar's comments about Israel. It's going to be hard to keep up the claim that Trump is somehow a white supremacist and at the same time defend this woman's blatant antisemitic comments. Jews have traditionally supported the Dems. It wont matter much in California or New York but in a swing state like Florida.....:hmmm:

Another problem will be the final Dem ticket and the growing demand for diversity. There is no way that two white guys can be on that ticket without offending an increasingly diverse Dem base. So then the inter sectional shuffling of chairs will begin. Race and gender, a Democrat minefield. Someone is gonna be triggered.:03:

And then there is the Trump investigations and possibly impeachment. In my humble opinion this is a dangerous road to go down. A diverse ticket with a moderate and appealing presidential candidate would easily beat Trump. But I don't see a Barrack Obama on that declared list. Instead the ridiculous amount of congressional investigations suggest (possibly suggest) that the DNC thinks Trump can win. The wise thing to do would be to let it go and concentrate on winning an election with policy and an appeal to a broad base. And finding a candidate who can do that. That other path, if it fails will play right into Trump's wheelhouse.

Mr Quatro

03-08-19, 11:24 AM

https://www.thewrap.com/donald-trumps-las-vegas-odds-impeachment/

Will Donald Trump complete a full term as POTUS?
Yes -275 (4/11)
No +180 (9/5)

***Note: Must be President for full term (4 years) in office for ‘Yes’ to be graded a win. If deceased during incumbency, wagers are graded a push.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/03/vegas-odds-trump-wont-finish-full-term-as-president/21873044/

The latest line is: "Will Donald Trump complete a full term as POTUS? Yes: -105, No: -130

That means, if you placed a $105 bet on Trump to remain in the White House, you'll only earn back $100. If it's the other way around (10/13), and you wager $130, you'd take home $100.

August

03-08-19, 08:23 PM

Quite plausible - but the question is, who? :Kaleun_Wink:

My guess is it will be Biden with Harris as a running mate.

Obltn Strand

03-09-19, 02:53 AM

How about Donald "the God Emperor" Trump vs. Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson :haha:

Platapus

03-09-19, 08:48 AM

August

03-09-19, 12:00 PM

I think Biden is a good guy, but I am not sure he is the best candidate to beat Trump. Just being the incumbent gives Trump a considerable advantage. Elected Presidents tend, with few exceptions to be re-elected to a second term.

Very true but in this case a sizable part of Trumps victory was that it was against Clinton, a person loathed by millions for decades. Biden on the other hand, while he has a reputation as a doofus is not so hated.

IMO Biden's big weakness will be his temper. I think he can be chivied into saying something that will sink himself.

Platapus

03-09-19, 12:06 PM

Very true but in this case a sizable part of Trumps victory was that it was against Clinton, a person loathed by millions for decades. .

I can certainly agree with that.

Putting Hillary will rank up (down?) there with the decision to run Palin as VP. Makes you wonder "what were they thinking???

Mr Quatro

03-09-19, 12:12 PM

Very true but in this case a sizable part of Trumps victory was that it was against Clinton, a person loathed by millions for decades.

True August, but it is just now coming to light on why the right hates the left and why the right came out to vote for Trump in 2016.

The Supreme Court nominees will make a difference for decades to come and even if the Democrats retake the WH they can't control our nation at the Supreme Court level anymore.

This new wave of late term baby killers won't overturn Roe vs Wade. Women will always have that right to terminate their babies, but when and how will be a Supreme Court issue soon and very soon. :yep:

August

03-09-19, 12:28 PM

I can certainly agree with that.

Putting Hillary will rank up (down?) there with the decision to run Palin as VP. Makes you wonder "what were they thinking???

Well although they certainly had the same effect (media spin has a lot to do with it) I don't believe we can really put them in the same category of screw up. After all we're talking about a country with great experience in electing strong Presidents with bad veep choices. Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Andrew Johnson, John Calhoun, Arron Burr to name a few. Although it scares the crap out of me it doesn't seem to bother folks that it puts one of those people a heart beat away from the oval office.

I think Hillary could have gotten someone with George Washingtons stature to run as her veep and people would still have voted against her. Whereas the other way around a modern day GW could definitely win even with Hillary as his veep. Heck he could probably win with one of those clowns mentioned above knowing what we know about them!

Platapus

03-09-19, 02:08 PM

As I have posted previously, I believe that Hillary's legacy is being probably the only candidate who could lose against a buffoon like Trump.

I feel that if the Republicans would have run pretty much anyone else, Hillary would still have lost but at the same time, if the Democrats had run anyone besides Hillary, Trump would have lost.

She was a poor choice no matter how the DNC felt she "deserved" it.

She was an ineffective Senator and a mediocre SecState. Her resume is filled with effort but little results. A shaker and mover she aint.

August

03-09-19, 04:42 PM

Watching the Democrats try to catch Trump is like watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner. :)

Skybird

03-09-19, 04:59 PM

No comment.

https://p5.focus.de/img/fotos/origs10430721/2794765236-w630-h358-o-q75-p5/cindyandthepresident.jpg

vienna

03-11-19, 02:39 PM

Very true but in this case a sizable part of Trumps victory was that it was against Clinton, a person loathed by millions for decades.

...

Yeah, she was so reviled she got nearly 2.9 million votes more than Trump, a fact that still sticks in the Yellow Blunder's craw. Trump's minions and Trumpettes have been desperately trying to foist off the fiction that Trump was the popular choice and/or that Trump has a mandate from the American people; neither, like anything Trump says, is the truth. He got no majority of the popular vote, so any claim of a mandate is absolutely false; he got fewer votes than Clinton, so the evidence is that, given a choice, the voters chose Clinton; Trump got 46.1% of the popular vote (Clinton: 48.2%) meaning a clear majority of Americans voting, 53.9% did not see enough value to Trump's campaign/issues to actually vote for him and either voted for Clinton or other candidates. Trump hasn't even been able to get his approval rating above 50%: he started office at 45.5% and currently is at 41.8%; these are numbers one sees when a President is in their second term and is 'lame ducking' out their term:

Trump Approval Ratings --

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Even Nixon had a 49.8% approval rating when he resigned in disgrace than Trump has now at 41.8%...

Frankly, I can't really see why the minions and Trumpettes are wasting their time on continually dredging up the Clintons, or Obama, for that matter; Hillary has been marginalized by her own party to the point she genuinely has no influence on the party's direction; Obama still has some small pull, mainly for fundraising, but even he isn't as influential as one might expect from a former President; the party is moving on and they are taking Hillary and Obama with them...

Perhaps the obsession of the minions and Trumpettes with Clinton and Obama is due to the fact they realize that, without some sort of diversion and/or deflection, they would have to actually defend and explain the action, and inactions of Trump; the Trump CV as president so far is really even a minor bell-ringer, particularly when compared to other previous administrations. Added to the woes of the minions and Trumpettes are the woes and misdeeds of Trump's past prior to and up to taking office that are coming back to bite him in the ass (he does have a sizable target :haha:); and, as time goes on, more and more is surfacing to make Trump's legacy one less of serious achievement than one of serious mis management...

Its kind of hard to defend a pile of crap to people who are expecting much better...

..and, regarding Palin, I am one of those who was prepared to cast my vote for McCain against Obama; I am also one of a great, great many who shifted their vote when that albatross Palin was draped arund the neck of of an otherwise great and honorable man; I am also one of many who feel the GOP should be profoundly ashamed for what they did to McCain...

<O>

vienna

03-11-19, 02:59 PM

I'm sure a wall would have prevented this:

CBP agent gave drug trafficking organization keys to fences along the southern border, DOJ says --

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cbp-agent-gave-drug-trafficking-organization-keys-fences/story?id=61602268

For 10 years while still an agent, Robert Hall "facilitated the trafficking of illegal drugs, including marijuana, into the United States from Mexico on behalf of a drug trafficking organization," the Department of Justice said.

...

According to the Justice Department, Hall in total accepted $50,000 in cash from a drug trafficking organization "in exchange for using his position as a BPA to enable the DTO’s drug shipments to cross the border into Texas without law enforcement detection," the DOJ said.

...

Daniel Hernandez, who is set to be sentenced in May, is a former CBP nurse who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe a public official in February.

In one instance, Hernandez was paid $500 for a map containing sensor locations and a copy of a key that opened CBP locks, according to court documents.

In total, Hernandez accepted $5,000 in bribes from the drug trafficking organization, authorities said.

...

Walls don't stop drugs and terrorism from getting in; having honorable and trustworthy people stop drugs and terrorism from getting in...

<O>

u crank

03-11-19, 03:35 PM

..and, regarding Palin, I am one of those who was prepared to cast my vote for McCain against Obama; I am also one of a great, great many who shifted their vote when that albatross Palin was draped arund the neck of of an otherwise great and honorable man; I am also one of many who feel the GOP should be profoundly ashamed for what they did to McCain...

Are you suggesting that McCain did not have a say in picking his running mate?

JU_88

03-11-19, 03:42 PM

Oh come on Vienna, she's a 90's relic, with no message, a lousy track record, just another bland career politician.
Sure she won the popular vote, but she still lost, Despite campaign worth more than some countries. and against Mr orange of all people.
And god, she still harps on (insinuates) about how she lost to 'sexism', Jesus she must be a narcissist or a liar, because she cant be that clueless.

I'm not even American so I don't have a dog in the race, but if you're a Dem, you better pray she doesn't run again in 2020, because unless the sky falls in between now then, the out come will be the same as 2016.

Platapus

03-11-19, 04:08 PM

Are you suggesting that McCain did not have a say in picking his running mate?

I am sure he had a say but I am also sure that the RNC had a say.

u crank

03-11-19, 04:23 PM

I am sure he had a say but I am also sure that the RNC had a say.

I'm sure that both parties 'suggest' running mates for presidential candidates. McCain is on record saying he regrets picking Palin so I guess that is taking responsibility. His hind sight preferred pick was Sen. Joseph Lieberman. That pick would have been problematic as well as Lieberman was a former Democrat who was pro choice. That would have been the Evangelical vote out the window.

Platapus

03-11-19, 05:05 PM

1832 until 1940, the VP was picked by the delegates at the convention. It should be remembered that prior to the 1960's, the VP had little to do in the Executive Branch and spent most of their time in the Legislative Branch.

In 1940, FDR threatened to refuse the nomination if the delegates did not nominate Wallace. In 1944, partially to poor health, FDR allowed the delegates to choose the VP -- Truman.

Since 1948, the presidential candidate gets to choose, but I am sure there is behind the scenes influence from the party. Like most things in politics, it is probably a compromise. The presidential candidate wants to select a VP candidate that the party supports. It serves no purpose to buck one's own party too much. Conversely, there is no point to force a presidential candidate to have a running mate he or she dislikes.... Although the relationship between president and VP is not always friendly.

In 1984, Walter Mondale had two significant "firsts"

He was the first candidate from a major party to nominate a woman as VP and he was the first candidate to announce his running make prior to the convention. Prior to that, the announcement of the VP candidate was made near the middle of the convention.

em2nought

03-11-19, 06:10 PM

I feel that if the Republicans would have run pretty much anyone else, Hillary would still have lost

I seriously doubt it. :har:

Platapus

03-11-19, 06:31 PM

I seriously doubt it. :har:

If you look at the electoral map, Hillary got a few high value states and the coastal states, but lost a lot of the smaller states. Those added up. She did not appeal to the people in the majority of the states.

http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/bRgO6.png

To win, you have to get the smaller population states too.

August

03-11-19, 06:32 PM

That would have been the Evangelical vote out the window.

I wonder how accurate that would have been if he had picked Lieberman. Some Evangelicals might have stayed home but i'd bet a great majority would do their civic duty anyways.

August

03-11-19, 06:38 PM

To win, you have to get the smaller population states too.

That's because it's the United STATES of America. I think it's good that our national office elections reflect that.

mapuc

03-11-19, 06:49 PM

The map in Platapus post made me wonder.

If USA had the same voting system as we have here in Denmark and in Sweden. USA would have been a divided country.

More than it is now.

I'm pretty sure it would.

Markus

vienna

03-11-19, 07:06 PM

Are you suggesting that McCain did not have a say in picking his running mate?

I am sure he had a say but I am also sure that the RNC had a say.

Platapus' response pretty much sums up my own. Unless you really feel a candidate's party would allow/permit that candidate to have final say over their running mate, it is sure that Palin was a foist job on McCain by the GOP Far-Right and its Religious Right. Palin was a literal nobody with a bit of a dodgy background and was, at the time of her nomination, under investigation in Alaska for her actions as Governor of Alaska, hardly conditions for a ringing endorsement to assume a position that is literally "a heartbeat away from the Presidency". I rather suspect McCain's reluctance to give Palin the blame she deserves is due mainly to his basic humanity. I know an awful lot of people who also decided against McCain when they would have otherwise willingly voted for him after the curse that is Palin was placed. It should be noted Palin finished her elective political career resigning from the Governor's seat after legal and ethical investigations of her conduct in office were closing in on her. From all appearances, Palin seems to have made a Nixon sort of deal: I'll resign and you won't file charges...

I'm pretty sure Trump didn't even know very much about Pence when Pence's name came up on the list of VP possibles...

Oh come on Vienna, she's a 90's relic, with no message, a lousy track record, just another bland career politician.
Sure she won the popular vote, but she still lost, Despite campaign worth more than some countries. and against Mr orange of all people.
And god, she still harps on (insinuates) about how she lost to 'sexism', Jesus she must be a narcissist or a liar, because she cant be that clueless.

I'm not even American so I don't have a dog in the race, but if you're a Dem, you better pray she doesn't run again in 2020, because unless the sky falls in between now then, the out come will be the same as 2016.

Well, first of all, I ain't a DEM, or GOP, or any other pigeonhole that other hole place people; I'm an Independent and I vote based on what I can learn about a candidate or issue...

I'm not at all defending Clinton; don't like her, didn't vote for her. But your description, "she's a 90's relic, with no message, a lousy track record, just another bland career politician" makes a person really wonder why she got substantially more votes than Trump; by your definition, Trump should have taken the popular vote with extreme ease and we all know that he didn't and, most probably couldn't; to lose is one one thing; to lose to such a poor candidate speaks volumes about how poor and hollow Trump's 'victory' really was; he doesn't have the support of the American people (something I note no one has deemed to refute or comment on) and he hasn't had any majority support since the day of the inauguration...

Trump may have won the Electoral College vote, but even he knows the EC vote can be gamed, with the whole concept of 'winner-takes-all' and he has shown he is well aware of the humiliation of not also winning the popular vote. Trump's suggestions that he would have one the vote, but it was 'rigged' in some way, despite how absolutely ludicrous such claims are, shows Trump knows he ain't the belle of the ball; he's kind of like a guy who comes in second at a points based athletic event and ends up winning because the first place winner is penalized for some infraction; its a 'win', but not a clear, clean and absolute win, in a word: flawed. A flawed win by a deeply flawed man. He's kinda asterisked, like Barry Bonds (steroids) or Roger Maris (more at bats, longer season than Ruth)...

And god, Trump still harps on (insinuates) about how he lost to conspiracies to deny him the popular vote, Jesus he must be a narcissist or a liar, because he cant be that clueless.

Fixed that up for you, no charge... :D

...and, Jesus, Trump is a narcissist and a liar, and he is that clueless...

<O>

u crank

03-11-19, 07:49 PM

...winning the popular vote.

The popular vote in a US presidential election is meaningless. Less than meaningless. It wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee. Since it doesn't amount to a hill of beans I wonder why people keep talking about it. No candidate campaigns to win the popular vote unless they are a little simple and don't understand how the Electoral College works. Or in Hillary's case to raise money. That time would have been better spent in Wisconsin. At best it shows how the more populous states can 'game' the popular vote but it still has zero effect on the election results.

vienna

03-11-19, 09:34 PM

The popular vote in a US presidential election is meaningless. Less than meaningless. It wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee. Since it doesn't amount to a hill of beans I wonder why people keep talking about it. No candidate campaigns to win the popular vote unless they are a little simple and don't understand how the Electoral College works. Or in Hillary's case to raise money. That time would have been better spent in Wisconsin. At best it shows how the more populous states can 'game' the popular vote but it still has zero effect on the election results.

How did the 2016 election show the populous states were 'gaming' the election, specifically? Your reasoning seems a bit 'inside-out'...

The popular vote is meaningful since it is the only direct and personal metric of the mood and will of the voters. Te Electoral College and the machinations therein cannot negate that fact: the popular vote is one person, one vote and there is no finer measure on the vote; it is granular, without any sort of lumping together such as "winner-take-all"; the popular vote is the ultimate public opinion poll...

Remember, the GOP and Trump took a beating in the mid-terms; if Trump, and the GOP, by extension,, in actual fact and truth, represent the American voters and their will and mood, they would have retained the House and they would have not had to endure so many squeaky close races in they did win. Here in CA, the GOP now only holds only seven (7) out of a total of fifty-three (53) seats and has completely lost all representation in the GOP's greatest and traditional stronghold, Orange County; in fact, Orange County overwhelmingly voted in the 2016 Presidential Election for Clinton, the first time a DEM had won since the Great Depression. The Electoral College vote does not indicate such turnarounds; only the Popular vote gives the real facts...

Back some years ago, Schwarzenegger Was elected Governor and the CA-GOP, emboldened by their seeing great victory, set before the voters a slate of state proposition to advance their GOP agenda, in the belief they could piggy-back on Schwarzenegger's win; the voters solidly, and decisively, voted down the propositions, a defeat which furthered the continuing downfall of the CA-GOP. The same could very possibly hold true for the GOP on a national level; if they assume they can ride a Trump wave in 2020, they may very well find the actual voters may not embrace the GOP agenda nor Trump with the enthusiasm in their assumption; Trump failed to deliver in 2016, and given how things have been going for Trump of late, the GOP may not want to pin their hopes on someone who seems intent on digging his own very deep hole...

<O>

u crank

03-12-19, 08:24 AM

How did the 2016 election show the populous states were 'gaming' the election, specifically? Your reasoning seems a bit 'inside-out'...

Wow. That was a joking reference to your claim that the EC can be 'gamed'. Lighten up.

The popular vote is meaningful since it is the only direct and personal metric of the mood and will of the voters. Te Electoral College and the machinations therein cannot negate that fact: the popular vote is one person, one vote and there is no finer measure on the vote; it is granular, without any sort of lumping together such as "winner-take-all"; the popular vote is the ultimate public opinion poll...

I disagree. When there is a Presidential election there is a popular vote of sorts. All 435 members of the House of Representatives are elected by popular vote in their districts. It is a pretty clear indication of the 'direct and personal metric of the mood and will of the voters.' And it has a direct and influential effect. The popular vote tally has none.

..the popular vote is the ultimate public opinion poll...

It has zero political authority.

Here in CA, the GOP now only holds only seven (7) out of a total of fifty-three (53) seats and has completely lost all representation in the GOP's greatest and traditional stronghold, Orange County ...

Can we say 'ballot harvesting'? This is a new practice made legal by California's State Democrats. In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a change to Section 3017 of the Election Code that allows any person to collect a mail-in ballot from voters and turn in the mail ballot to a polling place or the registrar’s office. Prior law restricted the practice to just relatives of or those living in the same household as the voter. How convenient. On election night most of those seats were red. Over the following days they all went blue. In Orange county alone the number of Election Day vote-by-mail drop offs was over 250,000. Yes it is legal but having thousands of ballots in an un-secure environment, for days on end, in the hands of partisan activists, well what could possibly go wrong? And since it is now legal you can bet that the GOP caught off guard by this tactic will be doing the same thing in 2020. Democrats say it was all about 'making every vote count'. Not every vote, just Democrat votes. Got to give credit to the Dems....there is always a new way to eliminate the political opposition.

I think California is a perfect example of why the EC is necessary for Presidential elections. Once a political party has an overwhelming majority, they take advantage of it. Under the current system the Presidency flips back and forth quite regularly. Eliminating the EC would probably ensure a permanent Democratic White House. And make no mistake that is the end game of all this talk about eliminating the EC.

Mr Quatro

03-12-19, 10:23 AM

Platapus' response pretty much sums up my own. Unless you really feel a candidate's party wo he doesn't have the support of the American people (something I note no one has deemed to refute or comment on)

...and, Jesus, Trump is a narcissist and a liar, and he is that clueless...

<O>

Just a 98% approval rating among the GOP :hmmm:

Name one person running for POTUS that can beat Trump in 2020?

eddie

03-12-19, 11:49 AM

Just a 98% approval rating among the GOP :hmmm:

Name one person running for POTUS that can beat Trump in 2020?

Outside of the GOP he's nothing but a bad joke! How do you know there isn't anyone who can beat Trump?You have no more idea how the election will go, just like everyone else. Geez, get over yourself,lol

vienna

03-12-19, 04:28 PM

Wow. That was a joking reference to your claim that the EC can be 'gamed'. Lighten up.

....

Hey, it ain't my fault you're bad at telling a joke... :haha:

...

I disagree. When there is a Presidential election there is a popular vote of sorts. All 435 members of the House of Representatives are elected by popular vote in their districts. It is a pretty clear indication of the 'direct and personal metric of the mood and will of the voters.' And it has a direct and influential effect. The popular vote tally has none.

...

...and I disagree with your disagreement (so, there! :D). The House vote, in a Presidential election years is a good metric of the mood and will of the voters... in those districts. The best, and pretty much the only, metric of the national mood is the Presidential popular vote count, where all voters from all states and districts are tabulated together to give a full count, not just a piecemeal assessment; you see, no matter what Trump, his minions, or his Trumpettes use to try to spin their "alternate facts", the actual, backed by actual numbers truth is Trump was not at all the person the majority of all the voters in 2016 would have chosen; hell, he didn't even get enough votes to beat Clinton among the voters; I'd asy that definitively reflects the mood and will of the voters in 2016; and, using your assertion that the Hose elections are a metric of the mood and will of the voters, the fact that, after two years of Trump/GOP rule, the voters decisively expressed that will and mood by 'voting out the scoundrels' and giving the control over the legislative course (and the purse strings) of the next two years...

For the sake of argument, let's use the 2018 Mid-Terms as a metric of national mood. Other than the loss of some 40 or so seats by the GOP, let's look at the actual vote counts by party:

DEM: 60,727,598 votes representing 53.43% of the total vote, a net gain of 5.43% over the 2016 tally

GOP: 50,983,895 votes representing 44.84% of the total vote, a net loss of 4026% over the 2016 tally

Clinton beat Trump by about 3 million votes in 2016; in 2018 the DEMs beat the GOP in the House elections by 9,743,703 votes, or, roughly, three (3) times as many votes Clinton got in her win over Trump. Keep in mind there were about 10 million fewer votes cast for each party in the 2018 Mid-Terms; so the DEMs gained roughly 6 million voters; where did they come fro? The Independent/Third party votes only accounted for 1.73% of the Mid-Term vote, which was down from the 5.7% Independent/Third party vote in 2016, a net reduction of 3.97%. The indications are the DEMs gained not a few of the IND votes and that they gained a significant number of voters who had voted for Trump/GOP in 2016. Why the GOP losses and the DEM gains? Well, the only difference between 2016 and 2018 is two years of Trump mismanagement and the apparent mood of the American voters...

The will and mood seems to have been pretty clear,...

...

It has zero political authority.

...

Then why do parties and politicians fret so much about the popular vote as a bellwether for the conduct of their future campaigns, platforms, expenditures, and just general strategies? A vote is a vote is a vote and it takes popular votes to win, even to win EC elections. The EC is not insular from the popular vote process: it is merely the flawed application of the popular vote process. If anything, the EC, standing alone has zero political authority other than as a game to be played by political parties, often to to the detriment and contravention of the voters. The EC is, by far, the most unreliable and inaccurate metric out there; I often use the case of Nixon's 1972 Election victory over McGovern as a prime example: Nixon got 60.7% of the popular vote (a GOP candidate who knew how to beat a flawed opponent), but he wound up with a whopping 96.8% of the EC vote, a disparity wit the popular vote of stunning proportions. I really don't think the GOP took that EC percentage as seriously as they did the popular vote totals, and I don't think the DEMs just decided to throw in the towl completely based on the EC vote, either...

Just a 98% approval rating among the GOP :hmmm:

Name one person running for POTUS that can beat Trump in 2020?

Ya know, the whole 'percentage of the GOP' thing is getting really old; its kinda like going to Dallas and asking who the favorite football team is; and te results would be just as meaningless when the entire NFL fan opinion(s) is/are taken into account. Hey, I'm the most popular person in my home; however, full disclosure, I live alone...

Trump's approval rating, among voters overall, not just GOP, today is 41.8% and has been declining as of recent days; Trump's disapproval rating, among voters overall, is 53.2%, a net difference of 11.4%, a sizable gap that would give any political party pause for reflection. Considering Trump got 2.1% fewer votes than Clinton in 2016, an 11.4% deficit does not bode well. And we still don't know yet the results of the various investigations of Trump and his administration...

As far as who can beat Trump, its far, far too early to speculate; but, if I must insist I do speculate, I would say the one person who will definitely beat Trump is...

...Trump...

<O>

em2nought

03-12-19, 04:46 PM

Clinton beat Trump by about 3 million votes in 2016

I'm kind of surprised that along with sixteen year olds and illegals the democrats are trying to make it legal for dead people to vote in 2020 also. :D

JU_88

03-12-19, 04:56 PM

Platapus

03-12-19, 05:21 PM

The intent of the Electoral College is for the person to be elected president to garner the majority of the votes in the majority of the states, not just the majority of votes.

Citizens, voters, and sometimes even candidates may forget this.

vienna

03-12-19, 06:02 PM

...

Can we say 'ballot harvesting'? This is a new practice made legal by California's State Democrats. In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a change to Section 3017 of the Election Code that allows any person to collect a mail-in ballot from voters and turn in the mail ballot to a polling place or the registrar’s office. Prior law restricted the practice to just relatives of or those living in the same household as the voter. How convenient. On election night most of those seats were red. Over the following days they all went blue. In Orange county alone the number of Election Day vote-by-mail drop offs was over 250,000. Yes it is legal but having thousands of ballots in an un-secure environment, for days on end, in the hands of partisan activists, well what could possibly go wrong? And since it is now legal you can bet that the GOP caught off guard by this tactic will be doing the same thing in 2020. Democrats say it was all about 'making every vote count'. Not every vote, just Democrat votes. Got to give credit to the Dems....there is always a new way to eliminate the political opposition.

I think California is a perfect example of why the EC is necessary for Presidential elections. Once a political party has an overwhelming majority, they take advantage of it. Under the current system the Presidency flips back and forth quite regularly. Eliminating the EC would probably ensure a permanent Democratic White House. And make no mistake that is the end game of all this talk about eliminating the EC.

Oh, you can't be serious (in case you're still bad at telling jokes :D)...

I had wanted to comment on the above earlier, but I was interrupted, so here goes: ballot harvesting is not a new or "California DEM"; it is a lawful practice in about 20 states, or 40% of the total states and has been around for some time; it has also been used by doth GOP and DEM parties in the lawful states. CA did not invent it, over night, or out of whole cloth. To say it is a CA 'invention' is a fraud foisted by those who, in defeat, are unwilling to accept responsibility for their defeat and are trying to "alternate facts" their way out of blame's way. The principal reason the CA-GOP has done so badly in the past in CA, and go shellacked in the CA Mid-Terms is the same as it has been for the last several elections: the CA-GOP runs on issues and fields candidates that do not reflect the mood and will of CA voters; add to this the persistent CA-GOP obstinance against bucking their National GOP overloads and dumping non-starter issues and candidates and the likelihood of even more erosion among the CA-GOP base is likely; already, in CA, the GOP is the smallest of the three groups of registered voters in the state, with the DEMs in second and the IND in first place (even the CA-DEMs have lost voters to the IND). Californians are a pretty independent lot when it comes to politics and don't really fasten too much too party strictures. Th fact the DEMs are in power is more a testimony to the DEMs ability to tap into the IND base than it is to any DEM party machinations...

Yet, the GOP, both state and local, while crying into their beers over yet another CA thumping, persist ing laming their woes, not on their own political ineptitude, but on imagined and false claims:

The New Republican Myth of California Voter Fraud --

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/the-new-republican-myth-of-california-voter-fraud.html

I don't know why, but the GOP seems to not understand that ballot harvesting, and other election tactics they blame for their failures, are as equally available to the GOP as they are to the DEMs; that they haven't chosen to take those advantages speaks more to their own ineptitude than it does to their claims of unfairness...

...or are there weepings and moanings and rending of clothes actually because they actually are inept: of all the states where ballot harvesting is legal, there has been no major and provable case of fraud connected with the practice, and the only one major and provable case of fraud associated with practice has been reported, in North Carolina, where, in one House District, the local GOP so fully botched up an illegal ballot harvesting operation that the district's election results have had to be voided and whole new district House seat elections must be held; way to screw up, GOP.; maybe they out to try hiring DEM consultants... :03: :D

As far as eliminating the opposition...

I think California is a perfect example of why the EC is necessary for Presidential elections. Once a political party has an overwhelming majority, they take advantage of it. Under the current system the Presidency flips back and forth quite regularly. Eliminating the EC would probably ensure a permanent Democratic White House. And make no mistake that is the end game of all this talk about eliminating the EC.

Aside from the fact the GOP has been more than overtly trying to pass legislation in states they control to "eliminate the opposition" by legislating their opponents out of the election process, and by any means necessary or illegal, there is the other GOP myth that the abolishment of the EC is a fully DEM idea and is being pursued solely by the DEMs for political purposes; there is a very large number of voter from the GOP and, particularly, the Independent ranks, who have called for the end of the EC; for us independents, it is mainly because the IND vote very often is lost in the EC mix; Perot got 19% of the popular vote and didn't get a single EC vote, effectively making those of us who did vote for him disenfranchsed from the EC system; if tossing aside nearly one-fifth of the voters is not cause for concern, I really don't know what else is...

I would also like specifics on how eliminating the EC 'would probably ensure a permanent Democratic White House"; that's a pretty big claim to make with nothing to really, specifically back it up...

<O>

vienna

03-12-19, 06:03 PM

I'm kind of surprised that along with sixteen year olds and illegals the democrats are trying to make it legal for dead people to vote in 2020 also. :D

Got solid proof of the above or is that just more GOP gassing?...

<O>

vienna

03-12-19, 06:10 PM

Unless there is a war or something, I'm betting Trump will probably be re-elected in 2020.
8 year terms have been norm now for the past 3 presidents. and Trumps approval ratings are pretty much on par with Obama, Bush Jr and Clinton by the looks of it.
That and the fact the Dems are divided between the Liberal old guard and new more radical social justice types.

Yeah, but Obama, Bush Jr and Clinton didn't have major open criminal investigations of themselves in their first terms and the spectre of indictment(s) hovering over them when they were re-elected, which makes for a very significant difference...

...and, hey, the GOP isn't exactly a solid rock of loyalty either; just look at the defections on the Senate border "emergency" vote...

We independents do enjoy the luxury of not having to worry about piffiling trifles like party lines...

<O>

u crank

03-12-19, 06:13 PM

Hey, it ain't my fault you're bad at telling a joke... :haha:

And you are not the first person to say that. There's my wife, my kids and a long line of others.

The best, and pretty much the only, metric of the national mood is the Presidential popular vote count, where all voters from all states and districts are tabulated together to give a full count, not just a piecemeal assessment..

Well there are a few problems there. One is that politicians don't run to effect the national mood. It not even a statistic. The USA is a large and populous nation. I very much doubt that there is a national, one size fits all 'mood'. My guess is that the mood in California is different from that in West Virginia. And if there is it could change between elections. That is what polls are for I guess.

.you see, no matter what Trump, his minions, or his Trumpettes use to try to spin their "alternate facts", the actual, backed by actual numbers truth is Trump was not at all the person the majority of all the voters in 2016 would have chosen...

Six states — California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland — accounted for more than 22 million (about one-third) of Hillary’s votes in 2016. In those states, Hillary won by an average margin of nearly 2-to-1 — 65.6% to Trump’s 34.4% — but in the remaining 44 states, Trump’s vote total (51.3 million) easily exceeded Clinton’s total (43.6 million). Hillary's 2,864,974 margin out of 128,824,833 total votes cast for those two candidates is hardly an arbiter of the overall mood considering the fact that Clinton’s entire popular vote margin is less than her overall margin of victory in California (which she won by more than 4 million votes).

Why the GOP losses and the DEM gains? Well, the only difference between 2016 and 2018 is two years of Trump mismanagement and the apparent mood of the American voters...

Not really. Presidents as a rule are rebuffed in their first midterms. It's not that unusual.

If anything, the EC, standing alone has zero political authority other than as a game to be played by political parties, often to to the detriment and contravention of the voters. The EC is, by far, the most unreliable and inaccurate metric out there;

It may be inaccurate to the people who are disappointed by the results. :D

mapuc

03-12-19, 06:59 PM

Onkel Neal

03-12-19, 07:12 PM

vienna

03-12-19, 07:29 PM

Sorry going a little away from you discussion

A friend posted a link and a picture of a children book.

The book is Danish

Here is a the link, to the main page of this children book..

The authors and the cartoonist have made it clear who they had in mind when making this book.

I will not translate the first word in the book..it starts with letter D.
(you have to do it yourself)

http://www.alvilda.dk/presse/forsider_jpg/9788741507033.jpg

My thoughts:
How low can we sink, when we are forcing what grown-ups are discussing regarding Trump onto our little ones.

Markus

What's worse is Trump will probably be flattered with this: "Oh they love me in Scandinavia; the Scaninavites have even put out a kid's book to tell their kids all about the great things I've done; it really, really yuge in Scandland, a big success..."...

Of course he would say that without having even actually read the book (or had it read to him)... :haha:

<O>

vienna

03-12-19, 07:33 PM

Holy cow, for real this is the current CNN page!

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1206&pictureid=10215

Do you believe that!?? Only one mention of da Trump by name.... :k_confused:

Something with the Deep State is afoot, my friends.:timeout:

There's trouble in River City, ya got trouble....

https://annotatedgilmoregirls.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/the-music-man-ya-got-trouble.png?w=1100

<O>

JU_88

03-12-19, 07:46 PM

Speaking of childrens books...... (NSFW warning!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA6Oy-h2LkQ

Onkel Neal

03-12-19, 08:15 PM

Ah, someone at CNN woke and is trying to wrench their site back on course.... :Kaleun_Salivating:

.
.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1206&pictureid=10216

August

03-12-19, 09:32 PM

They missed the Jake Tapper impeachment story. :)

em2nought

03-13-19, 01:21 AM

Holy cow, for real this is the current CNN page!

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1206&pictureid=10215

Do you believe that!?? Only one mention of da Trump by name.... :k_confused:

Something with the Deep State is afoot, my friends.:timeout:

I suspect 200 FBI agents weren't looking at college admissions to try and catch "Becky" from "Full House". They must have come up empty on the big cheese AGAIN. :up:

Platapus

03-13-19, 03:07 PM

Perhaps Trump doing dumb stuff is not longer breaking news?

vienna

03-14-19, 02:52 PM

You might have a point; Trump actually acting maturely, sanely and truthfully at this point would be cause for Special Reports and 24 hour coverage... :hmmm:

<O>

eddie

03-14-19, 04:20 PM

vienna

03-14-19, 05:39 PM

^ A prime exhibit for the sanity hearing for the GOP's "real stable genius"... :haha:

<O>

JU_88

03-14-19, 05:59 PM

You might have a point; Trump actually acting maturely, sanely and truthfully at this pint would be cause for Special Reports and 24 hour coverage... :hmmm:
<O>

Even if he did, it would still be reported as 'orange man still bad' because all the big media outlets & Journos are partisan and there job is mostly to sell confirmation bias to their biggest consumer demographic.

Stupid people in 2008 'Obama is an Islamic terrorist',
Stupid people in 2016 'Trump is'basically Hitler'

The stupid People didn't pluck those sound bites out of thin air, it was sold to them in corporate branding.

vienna

03-14-19, 07:08 PM

Well, as long as Trump keeps shooting himself in his expansive heiny, he'll be providing them will a large stock of product... :haha:

<O>

August

03-14-19, 08:21 PM

Oh he's acting plain ignorant as usual, talking tough Bullxxxx again,lol Big bad bikers, the military and the police will all come out and attack anti-Trump protesters! Oh we should al lbe so scared of Donnie boy!!:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Nothing but a punk Bxxxh!!!!!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-suggests-that-it-could-get-very-bad-if-military-police-biker-supporters-play-tough/ar-BBUMyvn?li=BBnb7Kz

Of course you only tell half the story because it fits with your "Trump = bad" narrative. He was actually extolling their restraint, contradicting the Democrats nearly constant efforts to portray them as evil racist thugs. His point is well made too. If the left wants to start another civil war they ought to realize that their opponents will not be the pushovers they seem to think they are.

vienna

03-14-19, 09:03 PM

Or anywhere as numerous or popular as the the far right likes to believe themselves to be...

<O>

em2nought

03-15-19, 04:55 AM

Or anywhere as numerous or popular as the the far right likes to believe themselves to be...

There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass. :03:

vienna

03-16-19, 01:06 AM

There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass. :03:

Yes, dropped by them as they run away...

<O>

MaDef

03-16-19, 09:19 AM

Yes, dropped by them as they run away...<O>The French maybe, Americans, not so much. :O:

em2nought

03-16-19, 01:28 PM

The French maybe, Americans, not so much. :O:
We're too fat to run. :up:

STEED

03-21-19, 12:14 PM

President Trump tweets that US will recognise Israeli sovereignty over Golan Heights, seized from Syria in 1967 warhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-47657843

I wonder what there neighbours will think of this. :hmmm:

Platapus

03-21-19, 02:57 PM

UN Resolution 681 - Prohibition Against Acquiring Land Through War

The US voted for this, but is "selective" when it considers application.

Skybird

03-21-19, 04:04 PM

The Golan was taken during a war of attack directed at Israel. Considering that giving it back would have meant strategic disadvantages when artillery and missiles played a bigger role than they do today (height advantage) and the Golan is a sweet water supply for the Israeli lower territories bordering it in the south (not the most relevant but still'': water flows from top to bottom, not the other way around, and below the Golan lies the lake Genezareth...), and considering that the Golan now is bordering territories that are parading grounds for Iranians and Hesbollah both are sworn in to the desruction of Israel, pointing out that giving back the Golan would border rewarding a war of aggression and would allow that the aggressor could just take back his move that costed many lives, as if nothing happened and there were no aggression at all, is an almost non-relevant argument - but sitll holds what I just said. The aggressor struck first, and his gamble failed, and he had to pay a price. Like germany is well-advised not to demand back former Eastern territories that now are Polish state territory, Syria has a similiar no-case of wanting back the Golan.

Also, the UN traditionally has a very strong, one-sided-anti-Israel pro-Arab-pro-Islam bias. Just count how many resolutions the Arab-Islamophile and anti-semite block has enforced against israel over - in comparison - nothing, and how shamefully few, if any, resolutions there have been agianst massacres and genocdies and support of terrorism against Islamic countries. The ratio speaks vokumes.

To hell with the UN, and to hell with its precious resolutions. It has no credibility or respectability left, is just a bopring joke that nobody can alugh about anymore since it has been told so many times now that nobody wants to hear it ever again.

Skybird

03-22-19, 04:23 PM

Mueller's done.

Final report handed to Barr.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47671715

Is Barr a neutral man, or is he a Trump guy?

Catfish

03-22-19, 04:56 PM

Can the president alone grant Israel sovereignty? Without the senate or the consent of the american people, whoever represents them apart from the president?

August

03-22-19, 09:43 PM

Can the president alone grant Israel sovereignty? Without the senate or the consent of the american people, whoever represents them apart from the president?

He's not granting anyone anything Catfish. Merely recognizing Israels claim to the land.

ikalugin

03-23-19, 06:13 AM

I wonder if Crimea would ever be recognised in the same way.

Platapus

03-23-19, 06:21 AM

The president can recognize pretty much anything he wants to. It does not affect any current legislation though. Any changes to current legislation will have to go through congress.

His recognition may influence future legislation

But for practical purposes, this recognition is mostly symbolic and political

u crank

03-23-19, 06:37 AM

Mueller's done.

Final report handed to Barr.

Is Barr a neutral man, or is he a Trump guy?

There is no doubt that Barr holds conservative views on many issues. I guess that is not 'neutral'.

Is he a Trump guy? It would be pretty foolish for a President to appoint an AG who was not in some ways supportive of that administration.

As to Mueller finally handing in his homework...it lays to rest that hysterical narrative by the Dems and the left wing media about Trump firing Mueller.

Mr Quatro

03-23-19, 09:27 AM

President Trump already knows what is in the Mueller report or he wouldn't be saying things like let everyone read it ... You don't become head of a country as big as America is without having some inside information.

em2nought

03-23-19, 09:53 AM

What a beautiful indictment free Saturday morning it is. :D Some people drink coffee in the morning, but I prefer this. :Kaleun_Cheers::yeah:

https://i1.wp.com/impiousdigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/liberal-tears-mugs-e1480586426239.png

Rockstar

03-23-19, 10:34 AM

I'm sure 25 plus million dollars of tax payer money well spent on this political boondoggle :roll: . The taxpayer is never going to know everything that report contains. But for some however the Russia probe hysteria must continue. Its great for media profits as all sorts of what ifs, maybes and might-a-beens will make for great headlines. Someone is ready to flip on Trump any moment now someone is going to flip just you wait! Someone must have threatened Mueller. New York's A.G. will uncover the truth! Its all a big cover-up! Its a conspiracy I tell you! :har:

meanwhile I got biatch slapped Friday in the stock market and we are quite possibly sliding into another recession.

Dowly

03-23-19, 10:45 AM

I'm sure 25 plus million dollars of tax payer money well spent on this political boondoggle :roll: .Manafort's assets were worth 40+ million dollars. The investigation is very much on the green.

meanwhile we are quite possibly sliding into another recession.
And who you have to thank for that?

Rockstar

03-23-19, 11:32 AM

Manafort's assets were worth 40+ million dollars. The investigation is very much on the green.

Are you for real? I (the taxpayer) will not see any of that either. Absolutely nothing is reimbursed to me the taxpayer which footed the bill of for this boondoggle to begin with. Also from what I've read most of those big numbers are not what he stole but what he hid from the IRS.

And who you have to thank for that?I know for some its the simple minded social media Neanderthal point of view that: It's Trump, No it was Obama, It was Democrats, No it was Bush, No Obama, It was Republicans, No it was Clinton. But be a good sport, why dont you enlighten us all with your expert knowledge and explain to us how recessions happen?

Dowly

03-23-19, 11:53 AM

Are you for real? I (the taxpayer) will not see any of that either. Absolutely nothing is reimbursed to me the taxpayer which footed the bill of for this boondoggle to begin with. No, you will not be given tax returns for it, but the money and assets are going to the DOJ that can use them in the future instead of tax payers money.

But be a good sport, why dont you enlighten us all with your expert knowledge and explain to us how recessions happen?I asked you, who you're blaming for it. (paraphrasing)

Rockstar

03-23-19, 01:38 PM

No, you will not be given tax returns for it, but the money and assets are going to the DOJ that can use them in the future instead of tax payers money. What in the world makes you think I enjoy being a martyr? That was my money they used for their own political gain. it which served nobody but the media and the politicians. I got the stinky end of the stick again.

I asked you, who you're blaming for it. (paraphrasing)The question is better asked 'what' causes recessions. I have a feeble understanding of some of the domestic causes. And in a global economy its quite possible one nation's economic down turn can have a ripple effect on others. Reputable economists around the world pretend to have the answers which are lengthy, full of economist jargon and sometimes contradictory. But I have yet to see any of the reputable ones mention its the fault of one person.

Social media warriors on the other hand love controversy as it jins up revenue. Media loves to point the finger at one person it makes it easy for the gullible masses to digest, and keeps them tuned in. Rather than get educated why it really happens. When you asked 'who is too blame' it appears to me you think there's one person to blame. Enlighten us then who do you think is too blame for recessions? And dont let the fact we aren't in one yet get in the way of your answer because you are the one who appears to think a person can be blamed.

Buddahaid

03-23-19, 02:17 PM

vienna

03-23-19, 02:56 PM

I wonder if Crimea would ever be recognised in the same way.

Not until Putin gives Trump the approval and order to do so... :D

<O>

merc4ulfate

03-23-19, 03:32 PM

That is true indeed ("Er windet sich wie ein Wurm"). But even in German it is considered to be a bit unpolite to tell a stranger.

Neal's place - Neal's rules. ;)

Freedom of speech does not mean you can cash into a private home and then insist the owners of it have to isten to what you have to say.

It means you can own the place and the time to exceute the right of free speech, if you wish. Rent a city hall, for a defined time, at your costs, and then say what you think you must. Or find a speakers corner in Hyde Park where the community has agreed to let this happen. Or found your own broadcasting station. Free speech does not give you claim for the private sphere and private property of others.

This is not "public space" - its a forum. Neal pays the bills, he defines the rules. He allows the public in, but it remains to be his "private property".

My home, my rules. His place, his rules. Simple. Who pays the bill, has the say.

How quaint ... a forum discussion listed as, "US Politics Thread" where no one discusses politics. All I read was insults which seems to be the form from so many in US politics. Then someone gets banned for being just like everyone else on the thread.

Definitely american politics.

Cult of Personality (https://youtu.be/j74mxqvxRDQ)

Now actually speaking of politics I have felt that democracy plateaued half a century ago especially in the united states and is simply water-falling down the cliff of obscurity. While early on its flaws were not so apparent left unchecked those flaws have now grown into exactly what the founding fathers were trying to bury. As I mused on this one day I came across a very good article on the subject written by Roman Krznaric.

Very good article (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190318-can-we-reinvent-democracy-for-the-long-term)

August

03-23-19, 03:51 PM

I wonder if Crimea would ever be recognised in the same way.

The Ukrainians weren't shelling Russia from the Crimea so no.

Rockstar

03-23-19, 03:56 PM

[QUOTE=Rockstar;2598778]I'm sure 25 plus million dollars of tax payer money well spent on this political boondoggle :roll: ...../QUOTE]

Kenneth Starr ring a bell?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/

If you remember I shared my thoughts that both the Mueller investigation AND the Starr investigation were political boondoggles and national embarrassments. Political farce at my expense.

Catfish

03-23-19, 04:02 PM

[...] Very good article (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190318-can-we-reinvent-democracy-for-the-long-term)

Yep.
"Nations bicker around international conference tables, focused on their near-term interests, while the planet burns and species disappear.
As the 24/7 news media pumps out the latest twist in the Brexit negotiations or obsesses over a throwaway comment from the US president, the myopia of modern democratic politics is all too obvious. So is there an antidote to this political presentism that pushes the interests of future generations permanently beyond the horizon?"

I don't know, but it makes you despair sometimes.

August

03-23-19, 04:09 PM

http://thepilotspub.org/download/file.php?id=3365

Skybird

03-23-19, 04:52 PM

The system itself is in a deep crisis, all trust is rightfully lost. The onyl way to regain that is by transparency. Backroom deals and secret internal affairs not documented to the public will not help that. Trump, though not Trump alone, did his best to deepen this crisis, he coquets with it, its his business model and without it he would soon disappear, and he keeps the plebs hooting, and thats what counts nowadays.

While the usual routine seesm to be that such reprts are not beign made oublic, this routine was already broken in case of Hillary Clinton during the campaign, and it also is quesitonbable thatr it can be justfied that a documentation on how the very system itself may have been corrupoted, is kept secret. When transparency is needed as I claimed, then hiding Mueller's report from public or leave the decision to a secretary of justice who was appointed by the accused, is no wise option. But it may saupport the busines smodel of Trump as derscribed: to ever spill fuel into the fire and keep his part of the plebs hooting.

There is plenty of scorn and glee in A,mericna pollti8cs nowadays, and they seem to be the fundament of people'S sympoatjsiing with this or that camp.

Which means the whole system has already suffered irrepairable, criticla damage - becasue scorn and glee as reasons for poltical acting were not what the fundament of the Us was build on by the foundign fathers.

The present status of American politics dceserve just one thing: to spit on it. The English internal mess may display a hilarious ammount of stubborness and incometence - but the American example now just displays outright perosnal hositlity and malice - and scorn and glee.

Der Westen ist im Arsch. That simple it is. And with 8 billion people crawling around on Earth, the whole world is. The worse it gets, the more religious sociopaths and primitive hillbillies will gain control by simple violence and every more hooting, drowning the world in betrayal, fascist ideology of various faces, and terror.

u crank

03-24-19, 06:14 AM

When transparency is needed as I claimed, then hiding Mueller's report from public or leave the decision to a secretary of justice who was appointed by the accused, is no wise option.

I'm sorry to tell you Sky, but that is just not how it works. William Barr, The Attorney General is under some strict guidelines on how he should proceed. He has promised to be as transparent as possible but there are limits. When unelected officials over step their authority there are usually consequences.

When then FBI Director James Comey made his now infamous July 5, 2016 announcement on the Hillary Clinton Email investigation he made that mistake.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

By making that statement Comey became accuser, judge and jury all at the same time. It should never have happened. If there was evidence to bring charges then he should have done that. If there wasn't then he should not have in anyway publicly accused her of wrongdoing. The consequences were an abuse of the legal system. The result was, combined with Comey's decision in October to reopen the investigation, a dramatic dip in the polls for Clinton. It also led to the eventual firing of Comey for his handling of the investigation.

Let's hope that AG Barr follows the the proper legal protocols in regards to Mueller's report.

Skybird

03-24-19, 07:19 AM

I'm sorry to tell you Sky, but that is just not how it works. William Barr, The Attorney General is under some strict guidelines on how he should proceed. He has promised to be as transparent as possible but there are limits. When unelected officials over step their authority there are usually consequences.

When then FBI Director James Comey made his now infamous July 5, 2016 announcement on the Hillary Clinton Email investigation he made that mistake.

I know, and I refered to that Comey case. Still, the system is in a deep, constitutional crisis, these are no orniary, normal times that those rules originally were meant for. A plane or ship usually gets run by routine procedures laid down in procedure guidelines. except there is an emergency - than these rules must be "overruled" to save lives and to keep chances for ship'S or plane'S survival. The US's plticla system is in no different situation than right this: it headdives for a crash on the bottom of the sea. The erosion is utmost evident, the emergency cannot be denied.

Let's hope that AG Barr follows the the proper legal protocols in regards to Mueller's report.Lets hope he sees the urgent and absolutely un-normal status of things and the need to adress them with his decision instead of putting loyalty to Trump before that, that is my concern, and thats why I asked about him. I read in German media that he has absolutely the right to publish the report in parts, or in full, either to Congress or the wide public, he also has the right to deny that, especialyl in case of the report leading to no further consequences and accusations. And I think this oublishing is what has to happen indeed. If the report is kept secret, even if it says that Trump did nothing wrong it still would widen the trenches and deepen the crisis then, and would be a notorious source of more rumours and hostile hear-say and suspicions. The suspicions must be brought to an end, if they are unfounded, and you cannot do that with keeping the report secret. To prevent this secrecy must be priority: no matter whether it damages Trump or supports Trump.

The report must be published. Too much depends on it. These are no ordinary normal times anymore. The situation is critical, and detoriating, and thus: urgent.

Call it an issue of national security. That are the magic words in America, aren'T they?

u crank

03-24-19, 08:26 AM

Still, the system is in a deep, constitutional crisis, these are no ordinary, normal times that those rules originally were meant for.

Well many people would agree and I am one of them. There are many legal experts who believe that there was no legal basis for the appointment of a special counsel because there was no evidence that the president had committed a crime. Trying to connect the Russian interference in the 2016 election to Trump and his campaign requires evidence. Mueller never charged any Trump associate with any kind of espionage conspiracy. Obviously Mueller didn't find any legally prosecutable evidence. In the American legal system you don't name someone and then go looking for a crime. Investigations targeting Americans for violating the law have to be premised on crime. Most if not all of the convictions that Mueller has brought could have and should have been investigated and charged by the FBI, the DOJ or the FEC. The fact that Mueller is not bringing indictments for collusion is evidence of this. People's feelings about Trump should not take precedence over the rule of law.

The real debacle in all of this is the utter debasement of the Left wing anti-Trump news media both in America and elsewhere. In their certainty of Trump's guilt they ran with story after hysterical story only to be proven wrong. On one occasion Mueller himself corrected them publicly. Their reaction to the 'no more indictments' statement is equally hysterical. I'm guessing that they have learned nothing and are now looking for more 'orange man bad' windmills to joust with.

Skybird

03-24-19, 09:28 AM

Well, if the grenade indeed holds no blackpowder and no fuze, prove it: present it to the public and let them see with their own eyes that there is no powder and no fuse.

Myth rebuked then, as far as the report's range reached.

Keep the grenade in the hidden and let not anyone see it, and you will help to keep the suspicions alive, since your behaviour necessarily must appear dubious, and suspicious then.

In this heated atmosphere, its a nobrainer, really.

u crank

03-24-19, 09:41 AM

The report must be published. Too much depends on it. These are no ordinary normal times anymore. The situation is critical, and detoriating, and thus: urgent.

Well, if the grenade indeed holds no blackpowder and no fuze, prove it: present it to the public and let them see with their own eyes that there is no powder and no fuse.

Well so far other than hysterical reactions from Democrats and the Left MSM there is no indication that it will not be released. Trump is on record as saying he wants it published and Barr has promised to be as transparent as he can legally be. As usual people get out in front of themselves for fun and profit. Why not wait and see what happens and then react? After all this was two years in the making. I predict more disappointment for the 'orange man bad' crowd.

August

03-24-19, 12:32 PM

I agree there should be full disclosure. Like this guy says:

The news that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has closed his investigation without recommending criminal charges against President Trump is a relief. It is not a surprise. Nor is it a surprise that the news has Trump antagonists clamoring for full disclosure of the special counsel’s final report. Mind you, when skeptics of the Trump-Russia investigation asked what the criminal predicate for it was, and on what basis the Obama administration had decided to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign, we were admonished about the wages of disclosure — the compromise of precious defense secrets, of deep-cover intelligence sources and methods. Why, to ask for such information was to be an insurrectionist seeking to destroy the FBI, the Justice Department, and the rule of law itself. Now, though, it’s only the uncharged president of the United States at issue, so disclose away!
Well, if we’re going to have disclosure, fine. But let’s have full disclosure: Mueller’s report in addition to the FISA applications; the memoranda pertinent to the opening and continuation of the investigation; the testimony in secret hearings; the scope memorandum Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issued on August 2, 2017, after failing to cite a crime when he appointed Mueller — let’s have all of it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-report-full-disclosure-documents-testimony/

Skybird

03-24-19, 03:03 PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47683309

In the course of their investigation, Mr Mueller and his team have already charged 34 people - including six former Trump aides and a dozen Russians - as well as three companies.

None of those charges directly related to the allegations of collusion between the campaign and Moscow - allegations that President Trump has always denied.

Mr Mueller reportedly also examined another question: whether Mr Trump committed obstruction of justice in an effort to curtail an FBI investigation into connections between his campaign and Russians.

It is not yet known how much of the report - if any - will be made available to the public.

It is not clear how much information is being shared with Congress.

Mr Barr, who was appointed by Mr Trump, told congressional leaders on Friday that he was "committed to as much transparency as possible."

Despite all the attention is has received since it was submitted on Friday, the special counsel's investigation is not the only probe that could threaten Mr Trump's presidency. About a dozen other investigations are being run independently of Mr Mueller's office.

They include a federal investigation in New York that is looking into possible election-law violations by the Trump campaign and his businesses and possible misconduct by the Trump inaugural committee.
The fat lady has not yet sung.

Skybird

03-24-19, 03:11 PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47688187

The summary of the special counsel's report released on Sunday "did not draw a conclusion" as to whether there was any obstruction of justice, either.

But the special counsel adds that its findings do not exonerate Mr Trump.

Formal ways can leadonly as far as formality in ways allows.

eddie

03-24-19, 06:51 PM

Well so far other than hysterical reactions from Democrats and the Left MSM there is no indication that it will not be released. Trump is on record as saying he wants it published and Barr has promised to be as transparent as he can legally be. As usual people get out in front of themselves for fun and profit. Why not wait and see what happens and then react? After all this was two years in the making. I predict more disappointment for the 'orange man bad' crowd.

And what was the result from the never ending Benhgazi investigations, and how well did they work out,lol No stinking waste of money there, was there! Poor Republicans couldn't come up with jack, poor babies!

u crank

03-24-19, 07:04 PM

And what was the result from the never ending Benhgazi investigations, and how well did they work out,lol No stinking waste of money there, was there! Poor Republicans couldn't come up with jack, poor babies!

I don't see the connection between the Benghazi hearings and the fact that Dems want to see Mueller's report released in full. I'm I missing something?

Buddahaid

03-24-19, 07:37 PM

Not really, it's just a response to Dems whining comments and pointing out Rep whining over Benhgazi. Politicians whine like children in a kindergarten sandbox.

u crank

03-25-19, 05:24 AM

The fallout from the 'Russiagate' affair is just starting and it is not likely to end soon. One of the failures in this affair has to be the way the MSM media reported it. MSNBC and CNN in particular drove this story like a rented mule. Straight up news reporting has been replaced by a preconceived opinion that is then pushed with every manner of false stories and exaggerated opinions made by people who should have known better. What they wished for didn't come true.

This article by Matt Taibbi lays out some pretty damning evidence about the media's failure in reporting the 'Russia Collusion' story. It is aptly titled "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD"

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller’s final report might leave audiences “disappointed,” as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news.

Openly using such language has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you’d have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without pants.

One effect of this hysterical and less than truthful reporting is going to be certain. The MSM will become the victims of their own undoing. It was bad before but the Left/progressive media are now the unwitting helpers of the people they so openly disdain.

Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base.

Years ago, in the midst of the WMD affair, Times public editor Daniel Okrent noted the paper’s standard had moved from “Don’t get it first, get it right” to “Get it first and get it right.” From there, Okrent wrote, “the next devolution was an obvious one.”

We’re at that next devolution: first and wrong. The Russiagate era has so degraded journalism that even once “reputable” outlets are now only about as right as politicians, which is to say barely ever, and then only by accident.

Catfish

03-25-19, 06:40 AM

u crank

03-25-19, 07:55 AM

So Russia cranked the election in Trump's favour without poor Trump knowing it. Cambridge analytics and Steve Bannon are spotless heralds of democracy and Breitbart and Fox have now earned so much more credit.
Good to know.

Well a bunch of questions come to mind here.

What does Cambridge Analytica and Steve Bannon have to do with the media's failure to get at the truth about the 'Russian Collusion' story?

Mueller's report was conducted by a crack team of investigators and lawyers that interviewed about 500 witnesses, obtained more than 2,800 subpoenas and warrants, executed 500 search warrants, obtained 230 orders for communications records, and made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence. If there is anything to the Cambridge Analytica story did Mueller miss it? Why no indictments? Is he that incompetent?

So Russia cranked the election in Trump's favor without poor Trump knowing it.

Here is something you should keep in mind. While Steve Bannon and Cambridge Analytica were supposedly doing this doing this Barrak Obama was the President. James Comey and Andrew McCabe were FBI director and assistant directors. James Clapper was Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan was Director of the CIA. Susan Rice was National Security Advisor. If what you say is true these people are guilty of a massive intelligence failure and should be called to explain their failure or ...it's just like the 'Russia Collusion story. A minor story/theory blown way out of proportion by a compliant media.

ikalugin

03-25-19, 10:35 AM

Makes me wonder, how many positive articles did NYT or other MSM outlets post about Russia?

Back in 2018 I recall Pozner claiming that NYT did not publish any over several years, makes one wonder if their coverage was skewed.

Rockstar

03-25-19, 10:50 AM

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a8b775fe81e39fb6cf5cace868929e05/tenor.gif

Mr Quatro

03-25-19, 11:23 AM

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a8b775fe81e39fb6cf5cace868929e05/tenor.gif

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qY6Tvso1eyg/maxresdefault.jpg

Skybird

03-25-19, 05:56 PM

His new deodorant

https://i.postimg.cc/Dz0wvvwh/Unbenannt.png (https://postimages.org/)

Tagesspiegel. By Struttmann.

August

03-25-19, 09:50 PM

I've seen more than one similar accusation here.

The Myth that Won’t Die: Donald Trump as Russia's Puppet

Russophobes seem to believe that if they repeat an absurdity often enough, it somehow becomes true. The myth that Trump has been Putin’s puppet falls into that category. Trump did commit the apparently unpardonable sin during the 2016 campaign of advocating better relations with Moscow, and he was guilty of using effusive diplomatic language at Helsinki. But if one examines his administration’s actual policies toward Russia, the notion that he is “doing Putin’s bidding” or even pursuing an appeasement policy evaporates.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/myth-won%E2%80%99t-die-donald-trump-russias-puppet-48982

Rockstar

03-26-19, 06:16 AM

Just a guess, I bet if you investigated those politicians who were chirping on about Trump's ties too Russia. You would probably find those accusers probably have cozy ties to Ukraine they didn't want too see disrupted.

Dowly

03-26-19, 07:23 AM

Hold your champagne for after the report has been released (if it is released).

Rockstar

03-26-19, 07:39 AM

Personally I don't think the entire report will be released without redactions. I'm sure during this boondoggle Mueller discovered a great deal of information that would be wise to keep classified. Unfortunately that will play into the hands of our media and internet crusaders from all walks of ideology who keep chirpping on about what might have, coulda, woulda, shoulda been.

What I know so far is those things many were hoping for (collusion, obstruction, putin control of trump etc etc) you know all that bandwidth consumed here writing about woulda, coulda, shoulda here on this message board didn't pan out.

btw I dont drink alcholic beverages

Dowly

03-26-19, 07:59 AM

What I know so far is those things many were hoping for (collusion, obstruction, putin control of trump etc etc) you know all that bandwidth consumed here writing about woulda, coulda, shoulda here on this message board didn't pan out.
You know exactly as much as anyone else who have not read the report; very little.

u crank

03-26-19, 07:59 AM

Hold your champagne for after the report has been released (if it is released).

I don't think it is going to matter. There are a lot of people who will not let this go. They can't. Every new bit of information or lack of information sets off new conspiracy theories. Mueller went from being a straight shooting boyscout to just another Conservative who is probably compromised. People will go to their graves believing what was pounded into their brains on a nightly basis for two years.

I like alcoholic beverages. :O:

Skybird

03-26-19, 08:13 AM

The irony is that the issue is a non-issue, no matter whether there are issues or not. :)
The anti-Trumpians made one big mistake. They assumed that in their clean and tidy laboratory world there would be a smoking gun somehwere, if Trump asnwers favours to Putin. That it would be signed and sealed in a fashion that is formal and can be disclosed if you find the right causal evidence.

And that is ver yunlikely, and ws so from beginning on. There have been ties between Trump and person rnaking high in he Russian hierarchy. He most liely accepted compromising social situation, to out it this way, h maintained ties to dubious business names in Russia who were engaged in prostituion, fraud or were generally extrenely close to and protected by Putin.

We do not know ehether the Russians have somethin in their hands to blackmail him. And such a report like that of Mueller is extrenely unlikely to ever find that out if it were the truth. It is also extremely unreasonable to think the befor ementioned smoking gun would exist.

And still: Russian nfluence on Trumps thinking and decison making still could be real, and critical, formed by the mere social contexa nd the way the Russians handled it. Did they flatter his ego? Did they place kind mind-mines in his brain that later exploded? They certainly did not sit own and signed a contract, both sides, that the Kremlin and Trump from now on would collude. You can influence anothe rperson nevertheless, and in way more subtle fashion, non-.verbally, by suggestive langauge, non-verbial communication, imoressing or intimidating the other, flattering him, and so forth. In other words: you can send bullets without firing guns that thus do not smoke at all. A leader can indicate to his staff he wants somethign done that the law forbids him to to order. Likewise you can mnaipulate another person to correspond with your intentions, by cleverly manioulating his way of how he thinks about it.

The dems thought there would be a smoking gun to be found. And indeed there are string indicatons that not everything in trumps campaign went as morally and legally clean as one demands in an electona nd campaign. That Trump behaves like an uneducated bloke and has assembled a gang of marvelous mobesters around him, doe snit hel o cure the bad imoression he leaves, too.

Still, that a smoking gun would be found, I never believed. And now Mueller says that he did not find a smoking gun. But he also said that his fidning were not to be taken as an exoneration of Trump - something that Trump comfortably frgets to mention.

The Dems ut all their money on this report, andnthat was the big msitake they made. Now they stand there, breathless, low on ammo, and have nothing to hold in their hands and show to the camera. Once again it shows that Trump is not so much string by his own means, but is strong due to the headlessness and stupdity and weakness of his opponents. And so it looks as if he most likely will win the next presidential elections as well. There are two radicalizations taking place on both ends of the spectrum: the ever leftist Democrats turning even more penly left and socialist than they already were - and by that feeding the hardliners and rightwingers who turn more extreme in their positions in a reaction t the left - and by that the feed back on the moving of the Dems to even further to the left...

And this is playing right into the hands of Putin, like the Europeans being too busy with their own messy state at home as if they could ose a serious threat to Russia'S ambitions. Here is the motive of a Russian meddlig with internal Western policy-making and elections: to spread unrest and destabilising societies by polarising extremes even further. Standard tactic described already in KGB manuals from the cold war.

You think you can causally prove that, and that you can find a smoking gun? Better don't bet on it. But like in criminal investgations they sometimes say "Follow the money", it can also be said: "Who has a motive for what? Who benefits?"

The Mueller report is non surprise, and it gets overestmated anyway. That Barr however takes sides with Trump by the way he tries to hide cerain harsh wordings by Mueller and softens them up by replacing thme with his own and sometimes kind of wishy-washy-formulations, is to be noted. He would not have been the minister of justice who went against Nixon if today would be that time back then. Worrying.

Dowly

03-26-19, 08:49 AM

@u_crank: Of course it matters. Barr's summary leaves a lot to desire and only raises more questions.

The summary makes it very specific as to what Mueller's team found with regards to Trump/Russia. That is, whether Trump/Trump campaign colluded/coordinated directly with the Russian government to interfere with the elections by way of sowing discord on social media and/or hack emails and spread them. That leaves a lot of questions about the scope of Mueller's probe. The Trump Tower meeting for example was between Don Jr., Kushner, Manafort and Emin Agalarov (others were present as well). Agalarov is not part of the Russian government. Does that mean Mueller's scope prevented him from investigation it any further? Did he refer it to some other agency? The full report would clear that up.

On obstruction, Mueller left the decision to AG Barr. That raises the question as to how much evidence Mueller's team found showing obstruction? Had there not been any evidence, the summary would surely say so, don't you think?

u crank

03-26-19, 08:52 AM

We may yet see Mueller's report although there would likely be redacted sections. There would be two reasons for that. One is the old standby about national security and the identity of agents of the US and other governments. The other is that the report might (intentionally or unintentionally) contain the names of innocent people caught up in the probe. Publishing those names would probably be illegal and lead to lawsuits.

But almost for certain Mueller's report would not contain all the data used to make the report. We are never going to see that unless there is a wiki leaks type of exposer. And for good reason. There is no way that Mueller and his team of investigators could spend two years of looking into all the details of this probe without uncovering embarrassing info about the Obama administration. Some of that is already known but my guess is Mueller knows a lot more. And of all the questionable behavior of those people, one name would be prominent. Mueller's old buddy and understudy one James Comey.

Dowly

03-26-19, 09:12 AM

u crank

03-26-19, 09:29 AM

@u_crank: Of course it matters. Barr's summary leaves a lot to desire and only raises more questions.

I'm not disputing that at all. In fact I agree with that statement.

The point I was trying to make is that to the true believers (and there are true believers on both sides) it's not going to matter. There is now a significant part of the US population that that believes that Trump is a Russian agent and a traitor. How did they get to that point before Mueller's report was submitted?

MSNBC grew its advertising revenue from from January 2017 to February 2018 by a whopping 62 percent. That is not a coincidence. It is nothing short of mass brainwashing. And yes Fox does the same thing.

The true believers have already turned on Robert Mueller. But I doubt very much if they will ever turn on Rachel Maddow.

I'm not looking for a full report with methodologies etc. of course that stuff would be redacted. What I'm interested to see is Mueller's reasoning and the scope he was allowed to go in his investigation.

And that would be a good thing to see. But I am afraid you, me and everyone else is going to be disappointed. Mueller's reasoning and his methodology are likely not in the report. In other words he is not going to show his work. Just the conclusions. In short he is under no obligation to explain himself. But that may change if he gets hauled up in front of a Congressional hearing.

Rockstar

03-26-19, 12:01 PM

I'm not looking for a full report with methodologies etc. ofcourse that stuff would be redacted. What I'm interested to see is Mueller's reasoning and the scope he was allowed to go in his investigation.

The scope and I think reasoning for doing what he did is already known i.e. how far Mueller is allowed too go. That was revealed at the beginning of this boondoggle almost two years ago.

By Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing Mueller states:(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. . . . .

What we will most likely never know is everything Mueller discovered in course of this investigation. I think much of what was discovered should remain classified for reasons u-crank has already pointed out. Which unfortunately is just going lead to more political hacks and shills to take advantage of that vying for attention and ratings spewing more woulda coulda shoulda on late night TV. Apparently this what people want.

u crank

03-26-19, 12:57 PM

Well I had to read this part of this article more than once. This is in regards to the obstruction of justice charge in Mueller's report which Mueller declined to make a decision on. Emphasis is mine.

If the Justice Department, in Mueller’s judgment, was perfectly well-suited to make the call, how could there possibly have been a conflict so profound that it was necessary to bring in a special counsel in the first place? A special counsel, mind you, who recruited his staff from the Justice Department, transferred the cases he brought to Justice Department components, and, now, has ultimately delegated his decision-making responsibility to the Justice Department.

As usual Mr. McCarthy makes some pretty good points.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/on-obstruction-robert-mueller-abdicates/

On obstruction, however, Mueller declined to apply the law to the facts. That was the only job he was hired to do. Whether he thinks the Justice Department’s decision not to charge the president is an exoneration or something less is no more relevant than what you or I think about it.

Rockstar

03-26-19, 03:35 PM

So he could not exonerate the president of obstruction, Hmmm? Hey, wait a minute I got a great idea! Lets start another investigation to investigate the former investigator for abatement of the law! What a hoot that'll be huh?

Dowly

03-26-19, 04:06 PM

If he could not exonerate the president of obstruction why didn't he prosecute the case against him?Because indicting a sitting president is a minefield?

The White House will get the Mueller report before the public does in case it wants to make redactions, Barr says (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/barr-mueller-report-white-house-executive-privilege-2019-3?utm_source=reddit.com&r=US&IR=T)

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday that Attorney General William Barr told him he would send the special counsel Robert Mueller's final report on the Russia investigation to the White House before the public sees it, in case it wants to claim executive privilege over any parts.https://i.imgur.com/lB5wmMp.png

Rockstar

03-26-19, 04:45 PM

In case you haven't noticed no charges have been filed against the president including obstruction. People just want to see with their own eyes the whole report because in their mind surely Mueller must have screwed up and missed something.

As we have pointed out not everything can be disclosed. I know that and fully expect such things to be carried out But the irrational masses, the brainwashed simple minded Neanderthals cant leave it alone and will believe the redactions as a conspiracy, cover up, lies and deceitfulness of the Trump campaign. They will take to the airwaves and internet with more accusations of what-ifs, maybes and could have beens. Even though after close to two years of investigating any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;. Nothing of any consequence was found. But rest assured leave it to the internet crusaders to keep the faith.

Dowly

03-26-19, 05:03 PM

As we have pointed out not everything can be disclosed. I know that and fully expect such things to be carried outYes, and that would be done by the relevant agencies to protect other on-going investigations, methods used, sources etc. Not by the White House. This will do nothing more than raise more doubts about a president who continues to act guilty as hell every step of the way.

Rockstar

03-26-19, 05:12 PM

Why cant the white house protect it interests? Did you ever think INNOCENT people who make up that thing called the White House have a RIGHT to keep private their personal information, business, itinerary, finances, history? That somethings may need to be redacted in order to protect their interests? Oh ya that's right like I just explained for some it can only be viewed as a conspiracy, lies, deceit etc etc. They just cant seem to acknowledge the fact that Mueller did not find evidence of collusion or obstruction to press charges. So in their feeble brainwashed little minds it must have been a mistake and if the White House wants to protect certain information its a cover up. jesus what a screwed up world

Skybird

03-26-19, 05:23 PM

mapuc

03-26-19, 05:26 PM

I was also awaiting this Mueller Report.

Not in the case itself, ´cause this is an all American problem and it's only the American people who can…..(forgot the words)

I'm merely interested in what common people, for or against Trump have to say about this. I find this a lot more interesting.

Markus

Rockstar

03-26-19, 05:34 PM

And wo decides what information says that soembody is innocent? In prticniple I agree with you, Roc kstar, the probke m is the potlicla situation is so bogged down that there are no trustworthy peple in place anymore. And certainly not Barr.

Also, doing in poltics is voluntarily swimming in the shark pool. You have no right to complain if you get bitten and have to show naked skin. Its not as if they got thrown by force into the pool, against their will. They are not "ordinary people", but higly priviliged top rank holders in the food chain. The common good justifies to control and monitor them with extraordinary scrutiny.

Dont like it? Stay out of it, do not become a politician or activist. Cant stand the heat? Stay out of the kitchen.

I still hold to the belief that people are innocent until proven guilty. I also believe people have a right to protect their privacy and government organizations and offices have a right to protect information they deem classified. Even executive privilege "the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public." Let the sane minds here not forget ALL of that information which may be redacted has already been discovered by Mueller, hell he wrote the damn report, its old news. The Mueller investigation is officially over indictments have been handed down, people have been charged and convicted. Except of course the one everybody was lead to believe guilty even before the investigation started. But all that's left is for the politicians, kooks and nut cases to take to the internet and airwaves with more conspiracy theories and cover-up stories, there's money to be made and elections to win!

vienna

03-26-19, 06:02 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_7wPf9geSM

<O>

Dowly

03-26-19, 06:29 PM

Did you ever think INNOCENT people who make up that thing called the White House have a RIGHT to keep private their personal information, business, itinerary, finances, history?That would be the DOJ's job as I understand it. I'm sure you have laws that prevent personal information of people not related to an investigation from being published in documents.

Here's Barr saying he won't allow White House to review the report, dated this January:
Trump's lawyers want to review and edit Mueller's report before it's out. William Barr said there's no way he'll allow that. (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/william-barr-trump-mueller-report-confirmation-review-edit-2019-1?r=US&IR=T)
Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's lead defense lawyer, told INSIDER last year that the White House wants to review and edit the special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian election interference before it's released to the public.

On Tuesday, William Barr, Trump's nominee for attorney general, told lawmakers there's no way he'll approve that.

When Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Barr if he would allow Trump's team to "correct" the report, Barr responded: "That will not happen."

Skybird

03-26-19, 06:31 PM

I still hold to the belief that people are innocent until proven guilty. I also believe people have a right to protect their privacy and government organizations and offices have a right to protect information they deem classified.!
I do not share your trust in the decider'S integrity or your trust into the state's offices, institutions.

Not at all.

I do not call states for no reason the most malicous manifestation of organisedd crime. I do not differentiate between states and mafia syndiactews anymore, its both the same. They both even share the same self-understanding.

I am time and again stunned by - and never understood - epsecially american'S generla trust in their state and formal institutions. As a European in egneral and a German in special I find it most naive, if not reality-denying. To rally around a leader just because he is called a leader and has claim, is against my DNA and my principels of reason and mental sanity.

The mere fact that somebody voluntarily went into politics, maybe even craved for it, in my book speaks against him and rings all alarm bells.

In Hayek's words: "In government, the scum raises to the top."

Not just the US. I am thinking like this about EVERY state, including Germany. Wiut szuper-national institutions like the UN or the eU it gets even worse. They playground the criminal can use for playing and hiding, is even bigger, and so the crimes gain in size and severity as well.

"Vertrauen ist gut - Kontrolle ist besser." And I do not believe in the general good in man anymore. I believe in some goodness is a few men.

Rockstar

03-26-19, 06:39 PM

oops I forgot late night comedians :03:

vienna

03-26-19, 07:35 PM

"Many a true word is spoken in jest"... :03:

Or...

"Jesters do oft prove prophets."

--King Lear; Act 5, Scene 3...

<O>

Rockstar

03-27-19, 11:31 AM

Just call me old fashion I guess :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cob5t_0G_8I

Rockstar

03-27-19, 01:02 PM

That would be the DOJ's job as I understand it. I'm sure you have laws that prevent personal information of people not related to an investigation from being published in documents.

Here's Barr saying he won't allow White House to review the report, dated this January:
Trump's lawyers want to review and edit Mueller's report before it's out. William Barr said there's no way he'll allow that. (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/william-barr-trump-mueller-report-confirmation-review-edit-2019-1?r=US&IR=T)

The article also stated "But Barr left the door open for Trump's lawyers to object to the report's release based on claims of executive privilege". If there is a case for executive privilege then let the A.G. hear it.

Mr Quatro

03-27-19, 01:51 PM

"Many a true word is spoken in jest"... :03:

Or...

"Jesters do oft prove prophets."

--King Lear; Act 5, Scene 3...

<O>

Old testament Poverb

"Do not listen to the voice of a jester"

August

03-27-19, 03:00 PM

I am time and again stunned by - and never understood - epsecially american'S generla trust in their state and formal institutions. As a European in egneral and a German in special I find it most naive, if not reality-denying. To rally around a leader just because he is called a leader and has claim, is against my DNA and my principels of reason and mental sanity.

Please spare us the moralizing Skybird. No American president before or since FDR has been allowed to stay in office more than 8 years, and even then they still must survive a scheduled election half way through it to go the full distance.

How long has your country allowed Merkel and her gang to rule you? 15-20 years now?

JU_88

03-27-19, 07:43 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=melFvhC0Feg

Rockstar

03-28-19, 07:29 AM

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EKX7MB0WpHA/TvOLxJB1H7I/AAAAAAAAAhk/wlrhwMHIZE0/s1600/brain-wash.jpg

Rockstar

03-28-19, 07:45 AM

Well its confirmed tax payer money was wasted. Because according to this idiot there really was collusion, apparently after 25 plus million dollars and two years of investigations Mueller must have missed it. And if the White House exercises it's executive privileged that will prove it is a cover up!

Schiff doubles down on Trump despite Russia report: ‘Undoubtedly there is collusion’

https://www.latimes.com/resizer/FYZfJSa8Ypu1B-ANZ4lm7qC8DX4=/800x0/www.trbimg.com/img-5c9b831f/turbine/la-1553695511-kx2049xfgb-snap-image

Dowly

03-28-19, 07:55 AM

Muh tax monies!11 :wah:
Once more: DOJ took 40+ million in money and assets from Manafort. The Mueller investigation, in a sense, made profit.

Oh, and Schiff is not the only one who thinks there is something there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_XY62Pws-Y

Rockstar

03-28-19, 08:21 AM

Once more? Once more is the fact that DOJ took my money as well as Manaforts and after two years investigationg according to our media elites IT SOLVED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING how hard is that for you to understand? It was a boondoggle from the get go. If anyone really gave a crap they could have gone after Manafort and done their job a lot sooner for a lot less money. You might think its a really cool way for government too make money but the idea of policing for political and financial profit bothers the hell out of me.

And just an FYI I think both of them are talking out their arse. Their need for cash flow, good ratings and political hay is done by keeping the public complacent with mediocrity and b.s.

Dowly

03-28-19, 10:06 AM

You might think its a really cool way for government too make moneyI didn't say that.

Rockstar

03-28-19, 10:24 AM

Then why do you keep pointing out to me like I'm supposed to see it as some incredibly wonderful consolation they profited 40 million dollars (and IMO politically) from this investigation that has now morphed into a story of conspiracy and cover-ups?

Dowly

03-28-19, 11:03 AM

Because you keep bringing it up as some sort of argument against Mueller's investigation from which we only have Barr's word for what it contains.

If you want to whine about wasting taxpayers' money, start with Trump's Mar-a-lago visits. :)

Rockstar

03-28-19, 11:11 AM

You do realize what the topic is right? And you come up with Mar Largo as the rebuttal. Oh man :har:

Dowly

03-28-19, 11:19 AM

Haha, you sure got me with that one! Phew, I need to go lie down for a bit after that retort. :o

August

03-28-19, 03:48 PM

http://thepilotspub.org/download/file.php?id=3382

Buddahaid

03-28-19, 07:57 PM

http://thepilotspub.org/download/file.php?id=3382

No image for me August.

August

03-28-19, 08:06 PM

No image for me August.

This better?

https://i.imgur.com/CdeidW8.jpg

Dowly

03-29-19, 07:27 AM

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”

“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’That about sums it up.

Rockstar

03-29-19, 08:07 AM

Ummm news flash everything was summed up when after almost two years of investigation Mueller turned his report. Which was I think last week or so ago?

All what you just posted is more political hay generated by Schiff when Republicans generated their own political hay by calling for Schiff to resign his position. Furthermore if you look closely and it has nothing to with Mar-Largo.

u crank

03-29-19, 08:16 AM

Well it is nice that Schiff has an opinion. Everyone is entitled to one. What I find remarkable about Schiff and others is that for two years these people held Robert Mueller in the highest regard and now that he has come to a conclusion that they don't like he is no longer relevant. A two-year-long investigation that issued 2,800 subpoenas, interviewed 500 witnesses, and used nearly 300 wiretaps and pen registers is not good enough. All of the things mention in that post have been investigated. If someone like Mueller and a crack team of lawyers and investigators can't find damning proof of Schiff's accusations then what? Are we to take a politician's word for it? Not the most trustworthy or unbiased people around.

And of course that's what this is. A political game. The court of public opinion and the court of law are two different things. Schiff's game is aimed directly at the 2020 election.

In the American system of law you are innocent until proven guilty. And if you are charged with a crime and found not guilty, you are still not guilty. If a prosecutor cannot find enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, you are still not guilty. Schiff opinion is irrelevant. For a member of a Congressional committee to appear on TV over 227 times a staggering 26 hours to promote himself and his accusations is shameful. My guess is he has higher office aspirations. He is doing the Democratic Party and the eventual 2020 Dem candidate no favors.

He is, and I'm trying to be polite, a slimball. I don’t think that’s OK.

Dowly

03-29-19, 08:17 AM

Ummm news flash everything was summed up when after almost two years of investigation Mueller turned his report. Which was I think last week or so ago?Mueller himself only cleared Trump/campaign from DIRECT coordination/collusion with the Russian Government in two very specific ways of election interference. Obstruction decision was made by Barr, whose past beliefs have it that a President can't obstruct justice.

Nothing else has been answered at this time. What are you afraid of? If the report clears Trump, why not release it for all to read?

Sure is a lot to hide for innocent people.

Rockstar

03-29-19, 08:38 AM

Mueller himself only cleared Trump/campaign from DIRECT coordination/collusion with the Russian Government in two very specific ways of election interference. Obstruction decision was made by Barr, whose past beliefs have it that a President can't obstruct justice.

Nothing else has been answered at this time. What are you afraid of? If the report clears Trump, why not release it for all to read?

Sure is a lot to hide for innocent people.

So much too do, so little time eh? Let us know how your investigation goes OK?

Dowly

03-29-19, 08:41 AM

Let us know how your investigation goes OK?I promise to keep you updated.

vienna

03-29-19, 05:17 PM

Old testament Poverb

"Do not listen to the voice of a jester"

Ya know, I just can't seem to find that Proverb in my Concordance nor in a Google search for OT quotes; got any cite to back it up? Just curious... :hmmm:

I did find a reference to the quote on a webpage:

Welcome To Revival Hotline --

http://www.revivalhotline.com/

The site seems to be a bit of a screed against a Revivalist healer and the quote is given and, like your own post, is unattributed to any Biblical source, OT or NT. The site use the quote to condemn a faith healer who may have been staging phony healings...

<O>

Rockstar

03-30-19, 05:20 AM

“If tragedy is about the fact that people are mortal, then comedy is about the fools we make of ourselves on the way to the grave.”
― Ryan Bishop, Comedy and Cultural Critique in American Film

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/fools

Bilge_Rat

03-30-19, 11:58 AM

eddie

03-30-19, 01:57 PM

Schiff is a tool and a fool.

All of this is now academic, there will be no indictment of POTUS or impeachment.

Trump will run in 2020 and has 66-75% chance of being reelected IMHO.

The dems can keep trying to spin collusion, obstruction, campaign finance violation, etc. all they want, but at this point it it so much political hot air.

Funny how you can go after Schiff, when you have such big slim balls on the Republican side, starting with Trump himself, then his 2 pussy sons, Old McConnell should be down on a farm, Graham isn't worth blowing his arse to hell, and Nunes is a butt kisser and momma's boy,lol

August

04-09-19, 08:57 PM

https://i.imgur.com/duT4sHU.jpg

Hawk66

04-21-19, 01:58 AM

Does one need the Miller report to judge the current administration ? The applied policy is just the opposite for preparing the country for the future. The ones of the administration ,which had that in mind, have left.

@August. You do not simply understand. It is not only about Trump and it is not about that he get only reelected one time at most. It is the corruption within a democracy and the lost faith of people in that this system is able to handle the challenges.

No western major democracy prepares currently for shifting and adapting the economy . This is the major source that people are unhappy - not only in the US but also for instance in the eastern parts of Germany. The old industries are gone and there is this "Winner takes it all" (digital) economy, which results in having big winners but also a lot of big loosers. Some of the big winners are now realizing that the current system might not last forever...https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitalism-in-crisis-us-billionaires-worry-about-the-survival-of-the-system-that-made-them-rich/2019/04/20/3e06ef90-5ed8-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html?utm_term=.0cc40ae0aa1b.

I can only point to the book, written by some MIT folks "The second machine age", which outlined the challenges, dangers but also ideas for solutions for the current (economical) struggle a couple of years ago already. It is a blueprint why someone like Trump was able to be elected and the current situation in Europe.

Skybird

04-21-19, 05:22 AM

The Mueller report is anything but a clearence of Trump. By current legal rules there will likely be no more consequences he has to fear, but Mueller made it clear apparently, that he does not want his report beign understood as an acquittal, and that the WH did a lot to hinder and obstruct the exmaination. Witnesses were found lying, the president tried to get Mueller fired.

A clean royal first grade acquittal looks very different.

I would even say that due to this report'S inf atc findings and conclusions, the air smells even more rotten in the WH now. But how the air smeels, and what ios possible by the letter of the laws, are two different things, unfortunately. As I see it, a guilty man escapes here. Not the first one, will not be the last one.

Russia succeeded in destablising, tremendously, two major Western powers and eroding and/or paralysing them from within and corrupting their political structures. Brexit and Trumpian polarization will be named as two of the most successful intel destabilistion operations of Russian services ever, they did not manage that success during the cold war. The Crimean operation ("little green men") not even counted. From a purely technical point of view: congratulations. But every fifth american or so even believes it is indeed something good! :har:

Its like Aikido. Dont use your own power - take the opponents power and direct it against himself. That needs not so much own power, but clean technical skill, its a difficult technique. Putin, this old KGB fox, excels in that. And so many people in America buy it!:yeah:

Hawk66

04-21-19, 06:17 AM

I agree mostly to what you said, Skybird, but we should not make the mistake to think that European people are smarter than the people of the other side of the Atlantic. See the situation in our own country, see that AFD (which has also strong ties to the Kremlin) is now leading the polls in eastern Germany. See how Putins propaganda has succeeded (I know that it is not the only reason) that the Social democratic party manages preventing to raise the defense budget significantly and the conservatives simply do not want to endanger the coalition since there is no support by the people for this (defense)...

...what is especially worrying to me is that a lot of young people buy parts of the Putin's propaganda, since they have no link to the cold war and its roots and the continuous struggle between freedom and dictatorship. They think it (being free) is free lunch.

Rockstar

04-21-19, 06:22 AM

Skybird, I think that its not about truth or doing what is right this is just the American way of politics in its purest form. Nobody is interested in seeing it end and will continue to use the distraction for political purposes right up to the 2020 election. Ol' Noam seems to think it will very well hand president Trump a second term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=sLyS0E91H1o

em2nought

04-21-19, 07:21 AM

@August. You do not simply understand. It is not only about Trump and it is not about that he get only reelected one time at most. It is the corruption within a democracy and the lost faith of people in that this system is able to handle the challenges.

As Max the Pug would say "this is absolutely ridiculous", sixty some million people proved that they lost faith in our lousy brand of politicians BEFORE Trump held office. If anything, just by being elected Trump has unmasked the vast corruption that was being hidden from us. Deep State? Yeah it's a thing. If the media accurately reported on Trump his approval numbers would likely be 20% higher, and he'd have a Nobel Peace Prize by now. If the media accurately reported on the deep state there would be people in jail by now for things other than tax evasion(well maybe they could get Al Sharpton finally too), and they wouldn't be people who work or worked for Trump.

Trump's corruption? It's child's play compared to the previous administration's or his opponent's. CHILD's PLAY :har:

Oh, and I wish Trump could get reelected more than once. ROTFLMFAO

Dowly

04-21-19, 07:35 AM

em2nought

04-21-19, 07:50 AM

I liked the part in the Mueller report where Trump reportedly said:
"My God. This is the end of my presidency. I'm ****ed!"

Oh oh oh, and those bits where Trump reportedly ordered his staff to obstruct justice, but they refused.

You know, stuff innocent people do.

Without the vast corruption of the previous administration and the corruption of Trump's opponent there wouldn't even be a Mueller report. If Trump's opponent wasn't sooooo corrupt she might not even have been Trump's opponent, and Bernie Sanders might be president right now. LMAO

Skybird

04-21-19, 08:00 AM

I agree mostly to what you said, Skybird, but we should not make the mistake to think that European people are smarter than the people of the other side of the Atlantic.
I did not say nor imply that. I remembered the math behind the eleciton outcome, how many, or how loittle people in the Us voted for and still support Trump. Its not as if a slight majority of American population, is behind him, has voted for him. Substarct those who were not eligiuble to vote, substratc those who did not care to vote, and of those voters who went voting: substract those who did not vote Trump. And of those you are left with you now substaratc those who meanwhile learned to regret their deciison and who have cancewlled their support: you are left with a rough estimation of around one in fiv,e probaly even less.

Trump in no way speaks for a majority of all the American people. Not even close to. ;)

See the situation in our own country, see that AFD (which has also strong ties to the Kremlin) is now leading the polls in eastern Germany. See how Putins propaganda has succeeded (I know that it is not the only reason) that the Social democratic party manages preventing to raise the defense budget significantly and the conservatives simply do not want to endanger the coalition since there is no support by the people for this (defense)...

...what is especially worrying to me is that a lot of young people buy parts of the Putin's propaganda, since they have no link to the cold war and its roots and the continuous struggle between freedom and dictatorship. They think it (being free) is free lunch.
Its discouraging to see people always falling fore the sam elies and sorts of propaganda, may it be the nationalist "right", or the social-justrice-progressive "left". Its for no reason I do support neither our poltical system as it is, or any political party of professional politicians. Its all a big disease. And it infects everything.

Putin, he is neitehr left or reight, he is pragmnatically doing what serves his ambiitons and power interests. Thats why it is no contrsadiction if Russia supports extreme left or extreme right camps. Its pure opportunism, like a musician playing on his flute.

when I think of it, from the left to the right, from the progressives to the nationaolistrs, form the special interest lobbies to the careeer polticians, all these wiorld improvers and holy messiahs of jstice and poeace and equality, they all have one thing in common: they all want to be in command over people, want the power to rule what people cna and cannot do, can and cannot think, say, feel. They all want to be great commanders on behalf of heir own view of things, they all are hidden dictators, and they all agree to totalitarianism if only it is pratrccies in support of their views, becasue then it is a good and just thing, and if their oppoinents promote it, then it is bad and evil.

The older I get, the more tired and sick I get of this rotten stinking smelly game. And people continue to fall for it again and agaiun and again and again and again, generaitomn for generation for generation, century for century. Man does not learn. Never. Tell him sweet lies, and he starts grinning like an imbecile and says "Jawohl mein Führer" - no matter who the liar is. I must conclude: people want to be lied to to and want to get betrayed and abused and subjugated. Its hard to work for your own independence and freedom, its so much easier to accepot slavery and dog-ship while putting your money on that your perosnal glory will increase by celebrating the glorious shine of the liar putting himself above you. Freedom is risk, is responsibilty for oneself, is effort - a golden cage luring you inside with false promises is so much easier to accept.

Had this this morning.

https://www.ortneronline.at/die-auferstehung-einer-ueblen-idee/

English: https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ortneronline.at%2Fdie-auferstehung-einer-ueblen-idee%2F

Damn, that is so true.

em2nought

04-21-19, 08:08 AM

Trump in no way speaks for a majority of all the American people. Not even close to.

Hopefully everyone will keep believing what they're being fed. The November 2016 election was almost worth it just for the looks on all mainstream media faces that night alone. :D

http://loonsinpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Trump-Derangement-Syndrome.png

Buddahaid

04-21-19, 08:38 AM

Apparently you are.

u crank

04-21-19, 08:41 AM

Trump in no way speaks for a majority of all the American people. Not even close to. ;)

Who does?

em2nought

04-21-19, 09:03 AM

Apparently you are.

If Obama had been in office these last two years with the same successes as Trump has had, the picture below would be how the mainstream media would be treating him. Hell, they treated him that way anyway. LOL ...and in Trump's case these successes come despite the opposition of the media, hollywood, the democrats, the tech sector leadership, the deep state, etc.

http://www.kingandcountry.com/images/deptdata/Image/Product/AE001(L).jpg

Buddahaid

04-21-19, 09:28 AM

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q90/921/2z3jaT.jpg

August

04-21-19, 09:52 AM

"My God. This is the end of my presidency. I'm ****ed!"Typical fake news tactic. Cherry pick part of a conversation in order to deliberately mislead people as to it's meaning.
As WoPo put it:
Neither are false quote but both are taken terribly out of context. In the full report Trump is making these comments while saying that it will make getting his agenda done much harder. The full quote is below.
We are being manipulated daily.
According to notes written by Hunt , when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m *****”
The President became angry and lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation , stating, “How could you let this happen, Jeff?”
The President said the position of Attorney General was his most important appointment and that Sessions had ” let [him] down ,” contrasting him to Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy.
Sessions recalled that the President said to him, “you were supposed to protect me,” or words to that effect. The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said, “Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruin s your presidency . It takes years and years and I won ‘t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”http://whatsonpolitics.com/democrats-media-cant-stop-lying/
They aren't fooling anyone except perhaps some foreigners and the party faithful. The rest of the American people see it for the crap that it is so I for one hope the Dems and their media friends keep it up. It only makes Trumps reelection a surer thing.

Armistead

04-21-19, 10:20 AM

What we really have regarding Trump is this as far as I can make out.

An investigation was opened up on Trump for collusion, but many feel it was done so on a false premise. Trump said it was a witch hunt by GOP haters and Democrats. As we know, Mueller found no collusion by Trump and we're getting ready to hit a mass of investigations on the false premise.

Even tho there was no collusion, the possible charge is, did Trump obstruct the investigation? Can one legally obstruct something that didn't exist? The technical answer seems to be yes. That is usually how these things go, as such happened to Clinton. Special Councils have so much power, along with the FBI, they become very intimidating. It should be when they know they have nothing on the original investigation, such as they didn't on Clinton with Whitewater or Trump on collusion, they keeping going down the line for years investigating every person, connection, often for decades to find something, anything. In the end they got Bill lying about a BJ under oath. They are trying to get Trump obstructing something that didn't exist, collusion. Again, Mueller didn't leave collusion open, he said NONE.

The danger for presidents is during this, they face a mass of propaganda attacks from the other side. The political response is to respond with your own propaganda. It's really a must, because propaganda controls most people. The danger is your propaganda in combating the opposing side often conflicts with what you say under oath... Such seems to be the case with most Trump officials, as many of them are being caught as telling two different things under oath and to the media. It's not illegal, but an ethical matter, but it works to your opponents advantage because they aren't under oath being investigated.

Since Mueller can't indict a sitting president, it seems he left it open with several points on obstruction on the collusion investigation and passed it to congress. Most constitutional scholars are in the camp, there's just nothing much there, some ethical issues, but no crimes that can be proven. For instance, was Trump firing of Comey obstruction as Mueller hinted and Dems are using. The constitutional issue tho is, Trump could legally fire Comey for any reason he wants! So the weak obstruction argument is, what were Trump's motives in firing Comey. The legal system then must become the thought police, which is dangerous and on the edge of unconstitutional. Virtually every Mueller point on possible obstruction falls in this realm or proving motive for a crime that doesn't exist. Really all it gives is Dems ethical talking points, not grounds for high crimes leading to impeachment and the GOP will have a mass of the same when all their investigations hit on how this all went down as they are doing now.

It may work to the Dems advantage in the end if they have a nom that has clean hands on all this. Dems would gladly sacrifice Hillary, her cronies, ever Obama and his, Comey and the GOP haters that have been in their camp to win the presidency.

ikalugin

04-21-19, 11:43 AM

Russia succeeded in destablising, tremendously, two major Western powers and eroding and/or paralysing them from within and corrupting their political structures. Brexit and Trumpian polarization will be named as two of the most successful intel destabilistion operations of Russian services ever, they did not manage that success during the cold war. The Crimean operation ("little green men") not even counted. From a purely technical point of view: congratulations. But every fifth american or so even believes it is indeed something good! :har:

Its like Aikido. Dont use your own power - take the opponents power and direct it against himself. That needs not so much own power, but clean technical skill, its a difficult technique. Putin, this old KGB fox, excels in that. And so many people in America buy it!:yeah:
The irony is that by attributing the current situation to Russia you do not focus on the real causes and fall deeper into the hole.

Overestimating your opponents is no less dangerous than underestimating them.

But sadly western expertise in relation to Russia is dead and while the older generation of experts and academia understands that they use politically and ideologically motivated sources the younger generation does not and rarely knows the context of even their subject matter.

Dowly

04-21-19, 12:00 PM

Typical fake news tactic. Cherry pick part of a conversation in order to deliberately mislead people as to it's meaning.
As WoPo put it:
That full quote sure makes it better... somehow. In fact, this is part of the evidence section of the OoJ portion of the report where the SC found "substantial evidence" that Trump was seeking to remove the SC. (Pg.78)

PS. Speaking of fake news, your article states that Trump didn't try to stop the investigation. That's a bit misleading.

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions
limit the scope of the Special Counsel 's investigation to future election interference was intended
to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.

As previously described, see Volume II, Section II.B, supra, the President knew that the
Russia investigation was focused in part on his campaign, and he perceived allegations of Russian
interference to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. The President further knew that the
investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice.
Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel's jurisdiction were limited to future
election interference only.(Pg.97)

August

04-21-19, 01:53 PM

I guess if you get upset that your political opponents have launched a witch hunt against you using the power of the federal government and that it's going to seriously hamstring you from doing your job then it just MUST be obstruction to show it even if you don't actually use your power to stop it.

https://i.imgur.com/wie8F5n.jpg

Dowly

04-21-19, 02:46 PM

Platapus

04-21-19, 05:09 PM

Without the vast corruption of the previous administration and the corruption of Trump's opponent there wouldn't even be a Mueller report. If Trump's opponent wasn't sooooo corrupt she might not even have been Trump's opponent, and Bernie Sanders might be president right now. LMAO

Deflection shields on full, Mr. Sulu.

u crank

04-21-19, 06:12 PM

The biggest takeaway I see from the recently released Mueller report is the utter failure of the Left wing MSM. What we had here were two major news stories that were happening at about the same time. Some people were involved in both stories. One story was the accusation that Donald Trump, some of his family and his campaign to elect him President conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. Let's call that story #1. Another story is that the outgoing administration of Barack Obama has been accused of weaponizing the DOJ, FBI and other agencies to thwart the election of Trump and then hamper his administration. Let's call that story #2. In a perfect world of completely non biased news reporting both stories, which are very compelling, would be investigated and reported on. But of course that is not what happened. The Progressive, left wing news media rode story #1 to death and ignored story #2. There are likely two possibilities here. One is that these people aren't smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time or their political bias would not let them do the right thing.

Well it turns out that story #1 was a bust. But it wasn't for a lack of effort by the MSM. Some people involved in story #2, James Clapper and John Brennan were even hired by the MSM to push story #1 and push it they did, making some embarassing predictions while doing so. Other people involved in story #2 wrote books, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, and the MSM had them on to promote said books and push story #1.

Well story #2 is still unfolding but don't get your hopes up that Rachel Maddow or Brian Stelter are going to call for a closer look. It isn't going to happen. Instead they'll keep pushing story #1, probably with the same results.

Story # 2, if true would be the biggest scandal in US political history. Watergate and Nixon would not even come close. You would think that possibility would be worth a bit of curiosity. Certainly as much as hookers peeing on a bed.

August

04-21-19, 08:40 PM

Trump was under investigation by a Republican Special Counsel appointed by a Republican Deputy Attorney General (who was appointed by Trump) to investigate his firing of the Republican director of the (traditionally conservative) FBI who was investigating allegations of collusion already.

Yeah, damn those Democrats! :haha:

Oh it's no secret that there were those who call themselves Republicans but are really just Statists at heart. The Deep State is mostly apolitical although they do tend to favor the left due to their desire for ever bigger and more powerful government.
But all that is besides the point. You parroted a fake media story and I gave you the rest of it. It is what it is. No need to get defensive right?

Mr Quatro

04-22-19, 03:06 PM

http://www.relatably.com/q/img/will-rogers-quotes/will-rogerss-quotes-2.jpg

https://www.ft.com/content/2f6e8006-6518-11e9-9adc-98bf1d35a056

The number of Democrats aiming to topple Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election is about to hit a record 20 contenders as Joe Biden prepares for an expected campaign launch this week.

Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts congressman who served four combat tours in Iraq, on Monday became the 19th contender to join a Democratic field that has already eclipsed the 17 Republicans who ran for the presidential nomination in 2016. Mr Biden, the former vice-president who remains the leader in early polling, is expected to announce his bid on Wednesday.

mapuc

04-22-19, 03:31 PM

August

04-22-19, 05:01 PM

2. Russian tried to affect the election in 2016. And Trump knew about this(have heard this a few times on Danish and Swedish news programs)

Candidate Trump did not have any inside knowledge of Russian efforts so that theory doesn't wash Markus.

On the other hand President Obama certainly knew of Russian efforts to affect US elections which began long before the 2016 election, but ridiculed Mitt Romney when he tried to shed light on the problem.

vienna

04-22-19, 05:06 PM

I have not read this partial report from Mueller.

Have only heard about it on the news here in Denmark and Sweden.

As I see it there is two side on this case

1. Trump did not cooperate with the Russians.

2. Russian tried to affect the election in 2016. And Trump knew about this(have heard this a few times on Danish and Swedish news programs)

I would lie if I said I know the Law in USA, I doubt that it's legal to
retain information about a crime who's about to happen, in process or have happened

So if the laws in USA is almost the same as here when it comes to retain information about a crime, then Trump have done something wrong.

I do remember Platapus telling me you can't prosecute a President, like you prosecute a normal person if this have committed a crime.

Markus

In case you, or anyone else, is interested in reading the actual report (I'm still going through it), here is a direct link to the PDF posting of the report on the Special Counsel's Office website:

Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election --

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Some light reading before bedtime...

<O>

u crank

04-24-19, 07:06 AM

Although I would probably disagree with Matt Taibbi on a lot of issues, I admire him for saying things that most Left/Progressive journalists will not say.

The Press Will Learn Nothing From the Russiagate Fiasco

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russiagate-fiasco-taibbi-news-media-826246/

..it’s shocking to see national media voices after the release of Robert Mueller’s report patting each other on the back, congratulating themselves for a three-year faceplant they must know will haunt the whole business for a long time.

So, yay journalism! You were more truthful than Donald Trump, at times. This is like being proud of beating a fish at Boggle.

We’re not trying to be right more often than Trump — we’re trying to not be wrong, ever. It’s a standard, not a competition.

News audiences were betrayed, and sooner or later, even the most virulently Trump-despising demographics will realize it and tune us out. The only way to reverse the damage is to own how big of a screw-up this was, but after the last three years, who would hold their breath waiting for that?

Kudos Mr. Taibbi. :salute:

Dowly

04-24-19, 09:53 AM

Oh jebus, now Trump's saying he'll go to the Supreme Court if Dems start impeachment proceedings. :doh:

eddie

04-24-19, 11:42 AM

Oh jebus, now Trump's saying he'll go to the Supreme Court if Dems start impeachment proceedings. :doh:

Needs a lesson on how the Government works,lol

Platapus

04-24-19, 04:38 PM

Maybe we can send Trump copies of Schoolhouse Rock... as long as we send someone along to explain the hard words to him.

mapuc

04-24-19, 05:43 PM

It seems like I must have misheard what those reporters on Danish and Swedish news program said a few days ago.

I have tried to recall my audio-visual memory.

So far I can remember words like-Democrats, obstruction and knowledge.

Tried to find article in both countries to see if they have written anything about it.

I could not find any.

So it must have been me, who have heard thing totally wrong.

Sorry Guys.

Markus

Dowly

04-24-19, 10:37 PM

@mapuc:

- Mueller could not establish that Trump campaign coordinated/conspirated with the Russian government.
- Mueller did find evidence of Trump attempting to obstruct justice in I think 5(?) cases of the 10-11 he examined.
- Mueller did not find Trump not guilty of obstruction.

- What to do next is up to Congress.

bstanko6

04-24-19, 10:53 PM

Bill Clinton obstructed directly in front of the public... and he made it through! Trump will be fine, and re elected... no sweat.

What bothers me, is that Omar chick can clearly, and publicly hate Jews, and nothing happens to her.. or wait a mentally deranged woman like Ocasio-Cortez can rant and speak about... well... I really have no idea because I dont speak nutjob! What happened to all the straight jackets? Didn't we have a bunch of them?

And finally... Bernie Sanders! Really? Let me get this straight, and correct me if I'm wrong...

He wants to run our government, like the very one, that wanted to kill... yes KILL, him and his fellow Jews? Is that right?

So Normandy was a waste of dead bodies and effort?

What the hell is going on with these people?

Dowly

04-24-19, 11:21 PM

https://i.imgur.com/WCm0tuk.gif

bstanko6

04-24-19, 11:27 PM

That's the look I give when I listen to The democrats! Uncanny!

Buddahaid

04-24-19, 11:33 PM

It's so easy when all you see is white hats and black hats. Doesn't stress any brain cells at all.

MaDef

04-25-19, 12:29 AM

What the hell is going on with these people?Mota saturation.

Onkel Neal

04-25-19, 04:27 AM

Sanders opened himself to scrutiny this week after saying that not only should incarcerated prisoners be permitted to vote but that Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should also be permitted to vote.

"If somebody commits a serious crime, sexual assault, murder, they will be punished. But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people," Sanders said Monday on a CNN Town Hall.

Oh, crazy Bernie.

u crank

04-25-19, 05:19 AM

- Mueller did not find Trump not guilty of obstruction.

It is not Mueller's job to find anyone guilty. Mueller is not a judge, he is an investigator and prosecuter. He should only have two choices, to present an indictment or not. An indictment does not make anyone guilty. A prosecuter still has to prove his case in court. Someone else decides guilt or innocence. His decision not to indict means he didn't think he could win that case.

- What to do next is up to Congress.

And now the case moves from a matter of the law to political nonsense. One can predict how that will go.

Dowly

04-25-19, 05:50 AM

It is not Mueller's job to find anyone guilty. Mueller is not a judge, he is an investigator and prosecuter. He should only have two choices, to present an indictment or not. An indictment does not make anyone guilty. A prosecuter still has to prove his case in court. Someone else decides guilt or innocence.
Yes, you are correct. Bad choice of words. To avoid further confusion, this is what Mueller writes:
"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation ofthe facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction ofjustice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

His decision not to indict means he didn't think he could win that case.Not true. He did not indict because per DOJ guidelines a sitting president can't/should not be indicted.
Here's the relevant portion:

https://i.imgur.com/BEzeyLS.jpg
(Page 1-2 of volume 1)

bstanko6

04-25-19, 06:28 AM

We should go back to the way our forefathers intended. Only property owners should vote. Eliminate some of the fool votes out there.

If we voted this way, we wouldn’t have people listening to AOC or Sanders.

Dowly

04-25-19, 06:46 AM

If you want to eliminate the fool votes, why not go with voting rights for only the better educated people? I mean, doesn't that make more sense?

u crank

04-25-19, 06:47 AM

We should go back to the way our forefathers intended. Only property owners should vote. Eliminate some of the fool votes out there.

You are joking...right. Say you are joking.

u crank

04-25-19, 06:51 AM

If you want to eliminate the fool votes, why not go with voting rights for only the better educated people? I mean, doesn't that make more sense?

While we are speculating...:D

How about a simple means test before you are handed a ballot. Something that would prove you understood the process you are about to take part in.

As for better educated people...better educated in what?:O:

em2nought

04-25-19, 07:13 AM

A number of democrat voters already own small plots of land. :D
https://triggerreset.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/headstones-democrat-voter-registration-fraud.jpg

Rockstar

04-25-19, 07:56 AM

Yes, you are correct. Bad choice of words. To avoid further confusion, this is what Mueller writes:
"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation ofthe facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction ofjustice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Not true. He did not indict because per DOJ guidelines a sitting president can't/should not be indicted.
Here's the relevant portion:

https://i.imgur.com/BEzeyLS.jpg
(Page 1-2 of volume 1)

Another reason he did not indict is there is a difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'. Declaring someone 'not guilty' means it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.

Leave it too the circus of partisan politics though to gin up the reality TV drama and unreasonable doubt.

bstanko6

04-25-19, 08:28 AM

I’m not kidding! Right now we have people voting for race, sexual preference, and political correctness!

We need voters that are concerned with long term issues. Not feelings!

AVGWarhawk

04-25-19, 08:46 AM

And so it begins. Do we stick with this US Politics thread for the 2020 election and prediction or create a thread just for that purpose?

The current field of near-do-wells:

1. Joe (Mr. Handy) Biden
2. Cory (Spartacus) Booker
3. Beto (I'm Mexican) O'Rouke
4. Elizabeth (I'm Native American. Let me grab me a beer) Warren
5. Kamala (smoke weed and listen to music not created yet) Harris
6. Kirsten(watch me exercise) Gillibrand
7. Pete (not a chance) Buttigieg
8. Bernie(I'll spend your money for you) Sanders
9. A hand full of no names better off working Dunkin Donuts.

Quite a field of pandering for votes if I have ever seen one. Pick your winner.

I'm certain know my pick. It is not from the list above.

u crank

04-25-19, 09:09 AM

This is the kind of thing that will become more and more evident as time goes on. Mueller has had his moment but that doesn't mean he won't have to defend his tactics or conclusions.

5 Times The Mueller Probe Broke Prosecutorial Rules That Ensure Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/25/5-times-mueller-probe-broke-prosecutorial-rules-ensure-justice/

1. Using Leaks And Press Conferences to Trash Un-charged Targets.

Rod Rosenstein... "The guidance I always gave my prosecutors and the agents I worked with during my tenure on the front lines of law enforcement were if we aren’t prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens.”

So why didn’t he order Mueller to edit out the report’s innuendo and accusation that the team did not have the gumption to prosecute? Rosenstein understands the unfairness of what he did. And he did it anyway.

2. Using Their Power to Crush Client-Attorney Privilege.

We want our president, and all Americans, to be able to have a confidential conversation with his legal advisor, possibly blowing off steam or even contemplating unwise acts, without those conversations ending up in a special counsel report. It is the essence of an attorney-client relationship that the attorney is given the opportunity to confidentially guide his client away from rash action.

Because of the damage Mueller has done, future presidents may now avoid their White House counsel for fear that a special counsel will publicize the conversation. Instead, the president may act without counsel. That’s bad.

3. Prosecuting Despite Knowing They Can’t Prove Their Case.

There’s no apparent legitimate explanation for the Mueller probe to have continued the “hunt” for Russia collusion after both the House and Senate concluded their investigations finding the same thing Mueller eventually admitted.

Mueller executed approximately 500 search warrants against our fellow Americans, all to no end.

4. Special Counsels Aren’t Supposed to Be a Partisan Hit Squad.

Federal law regarding the “Independence of the Special Counsel” says: “An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking,..

As one example, the prominent attorney Jeannie Rhee worked for the Clintons to keep Hillary’s emails out of public view only months before joining the Mueller team to investigate Hillary’s political opponent.

Is it a surprise that Clinton’s role in hiring Fusion GPS appears nowhere in the report?

Who worked on the Papadopoulos prosecutions? Jeannie Rhee.

5. Rosenstein Used His Government Position to Protect Himself.

Federal conflict of interest law (28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a)) says:

Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with: (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or (2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

..the special counsel found no fault with Rosenstein’s participation in the Comey firing. Would Rosenstein have approved a report that said otherwise?

The explanation justifying Rosenstein’s continued participation is nonsensical. In any case, Rosenstein should not have overseen the investigation into the president’s motives because, guess what, the investigator ended up taking a view of the facts that helped Rosenstein.

There will likely be more of this to come in the future.

ikalugin

04-25-19, 09:57 AM

http://i66.tinypic.com/14ca97a.png
From a RAND study. Makes one wonder how long USA would be exporting security into Europe.

Mr Quatro

04-25-19, 04:21 PM

From a RAND study. Makes one wonder how long USA would be exporting security into Europe.

WWII is over ... we won't be suckered into another useless war that uses tanks and two weeks to get there by sea ... the Air Force has a plan to deliver the goods, but only if it is a small unprotected country :yep:

ikalugin

04-25-19, 05:58 PM

What about, -gasps-, peer adversaries?

Sailor Steve

04-25-19, 06:05 PM

WWII is over ... we won't be suckered into another useless war that uses tanks and two weeks to get there by sea ... the Air Force has a plan to deliver the goods, but only if it is a small unprotected country :yep:
Back in the 1980s when I drove ski vans for the first time, in the summer we would take on any jobs that came our way. One day the Air Force was conducting operations at the old airfield at Wendover, Utah. For some reason or other their ground transport from Salt Lake Airport to Wendover ended up having to be used for some other purpose, and they hired two or three of our buses to transport the men and their bags, plus a van to carry the senior officers. I was driving the van, and I couldn't resist asking the man at the top: "So, when you have to go into another country for an emergency, is it the new procedure to fly into the nearest airport and hire local buses to get to your new base?"

He just grinned and said "Oh, you'd be surprised."

Platapus

04-26-19, 03:18 PM

Wendover? that brings back memories. I was out in that area 1982-84.

vienna

04-30-19, 08:34 PM

This is interesting, given Mueller has been notoriously tight-lipped about the investigation(s); it seems Barr's softball 4-page memo has raised the ire of Mueller:

Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.08580cb981f2

The Mueller Report -- with annotations:

The Mueller report, annotated --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/?utm_term=.b2737c4a2687

<O>

Skybird

05-01-19, 07:09 AM

Barr's opportunistically harmless comments certainly gave it a spin.

Stating things, quoting things out of context - how often has this practice been seen in this forum as well. I can understand Mueller's anger. I can understand him all too well. Its a very underhanded rhetoric cheat.

u crank

05-01-19, 08:24 AM

Barr's opportunistically harmless comments certainly gave it a spin.

Who's spinning what here and why?

What is really interesting here is just how disingenous the news media is. From the Washington Post article......

A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials.

When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said Tuesday evening. “In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis.

So what we have here is a news organization, the Washington Post reporting on the fact that Mueller thought the media spin was 'misguided, misinterpreted, and inaccurate or misleading'. Almost for certain the WP was one of those media outlets. Talk about a lack of self awareness.

It is also no coincidence that this attempted smear of Barr comes on the day he is to testify before the Senate.

Mr Quatro

05-01-19, 09:24 AM

Sometimes I really wonder how many hard working voting Americans really care about the daily news squabbles the media hashes up.

vienna

05-01-19, 05:38 PM

For those who want to see the actual letter from Mueller to Barr/DOJ regarding the SC's office displeasure with Barr's memo summarizing the SC's Report, here is a link to the letter:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5984399/Mueller-Letter-to-Barr.pdf

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release — a process that our Office is working with you to complete — that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. § 609(c) ("the Attorney General may determine that public release" of congressional notifications "would be in the public interest").

Seems rather unambiguous to me...

<O>