Jump to content
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
On 2/9/2018 at 10:54 PM, 17D_guy said:
Odds on a memo getting leaked just went up...I guess the Democrats have to check with the FBI and DOJ before a memo goes out. Republicans... Not so much.

Makes it so partisan and petty when it could be one more step closer to over. But that wouldn't be reality TV enough for Donny-Boy.

What you just said is made up. The Republican memo was absolutely vetted by the DOJ and FBI.

The looked at it yes. And they had this to say about it "...we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy."

 

Meaning they said it is cherry picked to give the appearance other than what really happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The looked at it yes. And they had this to say about it "...we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy."
 
Meaning they said it is cherry picked to give the appearance other than what really happened.
Which has zero bearing on what I said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

The looked at it yes. And they had this to say about it "...we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy."

 

Meaning they said it is cherry picked to give the appearance other than what really happened.

Both agencies were caught tipping the scales of justice(my opinion is with this options) and/or with the appearance of having done so.

And both agencies didn't want that information to go public.

Shocked, I tell you.  Shocked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question: what would be a meaningful way of "dealing with" the Russians? Europe is in serious trouble without Russian energy, or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 4:21 PM, Kiloalpha said:

I'm your huckleberry. Give me facts to support your key points you made in the following post:

1. Democrats aren't for open borders and open immigration
2. Democrats aren't advocating socialism
3. Democrats haven't ran up huge debts
4. Democrats don't want to "gut the military"

Democrats don’t want open borders.  The GOP website has a nice article outlining the Democratic stance over the past several years:

https://gop.com/dems-claim-to-be-pro-border-security-but-criticize-a-border-wall-rsr/

In 2013 a bipartisan senate bill was passed 68/32 and was ultimately shelved in the R-controlled House for not being comprehensive enough.  Several of the topics in that bill share current-day R talking points, to include more border security, expanding/upgrading the current fence, as well as shifting to a more merit-based system, and changing the lottery to focus on those already in the country, vs those who have never lived here.  Democrats have maintained they are in favor of reasonable border security throughout the Trump presidency, and are willing to work with Trump.  Trump wants his wall, and to impose limits on legal immigration.  Democrats are in favor of legal immigration, and don’t want the wall. 

"We believe in border security. We want to make it work, we want to make it real, not just symbolic. But we believe in it. If our Republican colleagues and the president engage in good faith in that negotiation -- without unreasonable demands like the absurdly expensive and ineffective border wall that publicly many Republicans oppose and privately many more do -- I do not doubt that we can reach an agreement on DACA that's acceptable to both sides." ~Schumer, 3 Jan 18

Democrats don’t want socialism.  What I typically hear is that democrats want to turn us into a socialist country and we will inevitably end up like Venezuela, or many of the other countries full-blown socialism has claimed.  While democrats do advocate for platform policies with a “socialist flavor”, I have yet to see a democratic politician basing their platform on seizing control of private companies, property or production for the greater good.  Democrats simply want to provide a better healthcare, social safety nets and education to get people back on their feet and continue producing tax revenue for the country.  No one should go broke for losing the health lottery.  Many modern countries are able to juggle a capitalist economy and still maintain a more affordable healthcare system.  Bernie was able to motivate a lot of younger voters but Democrats turned away from him and his policies to a less popular, more vanilla Democratic candidate (she who shall not be named).  Democratic voters are interested in some of those policies, but are still haven’t gone full-Bernie.

Democrats don’t want to run up debt…just like Republicans, but they will when it suits their purposes…just like republicans.  For Rs to run around claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility is a bit disingenuous.  The parties just argue how to spend the money.  

Democrats don’t want to gut the military.  Many folks seem to think democratic politicians harbor some resentment towards them and just want to gut us out of existence.  The recent gutting of the military was mainly due to sequestration, which was a bipartisan failure.  Obama did draw down the military, but mainly because he was trying to exit (unsuccessfully) from Iraq and scale back Afghanistan.  Currently both parties favor a DoD audit along with a predictable long-term budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, busdriver said:

Serious question: what would be a meaningful way of "dealing with" the Russians? Europe is in serious trouble without Russian energy, or no?

Sanctions targeted towards Russian oligarchs and leadership money laundering.  Stop accepting kids of Russian oligarchs into western universities.  Expand NATO east.  Sell more patriot systems and F-35s to counter Russian influence.  Harden our election systems.  Properly fund the state department.  Invest more in renewable energies to minimize their leverage with oil exports.  Combat climate change to minimize their warm-water ports.

Eastern European countries are heavily dependant on Russian oil.  Western not as much as they are able to diversify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^What a joke!  You don't care about Russia--you're just a progressive who doesn't like Trump (which is fine, I'm not a big fan of him personally either).  But I'm not using Russia an excuse to further support a progressive agenda of being against oil lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, drewpey said:

  Combat climate change to minimize their warm-water ports.

 

"Climate change."  {Drink!}

Besides that crafty Ivan will just hook the mother of all propane burners to his gas fields and melt the ice that we create by reverting to the Stone Age.

Nah, we need a better plan.  Consulted the Acme Company yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, drewpey said:

 Expand NATO east........

Eastern European countries are heavily dependant on Russian oil.  

I found a problem with your plan.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

 

Or when Bernie Sanders, avowed, acknowledged Socialist came that close to being the Democrat nominee for President?

 

 

Edited by brickhistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, drewpey said:

Combat climate change to minimize their warm-water ports.

To win a war against Russia, we must first win the war against Earth's climate.

Sounds reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, drewpey said:

Sanctions targeted towards Russian oligarchs and leadership money laundering.  Stop accepting kids of Russian oligarchs into western universities.  Expand NATO east.  Sell more patriot systems and F-35s to counter Russian influence.  Harden our election systems.  Properly fund the state department.  Invest more in renewable energies to minimize their leverage with oil exports.  Combat climate change to minimize their warm-water ports.

Eastern European countries are heavily dependant on Russian oil.  Western not as much as they are able to diversify.

Countering Russia is cornering a dying bear.  Russia is a mess and sanctions only work if they choose to play by the rules of the international political game that was created post WW2.  What about when they go all conqueror again?  

Renewable energies are currently and for the foreseeable future, a pipe dream.  They will not be economically competitive for the developing world for a very long time.  The need for oil will persist long after that point.

Shale oil and an energy independent N/S America seems to be legitimately on the horizon.  Will the US continue to finance world security after that point?  Interesting times are coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2017 at 10:24 PM, nsplayr said:

Look, benefit of the doubt here, if there really is nothing and the President and his campaign associates are innocent of all crimes and wrongdoing, then you have nothing to be worried about. Maybe money and time is wasted, but at this point that's pennies on the dollar to restore the American people's faith and trust in our institutions of government. The President has been pretty emphatic in his denials of wrongdoing and maybe he's right, we're all going to find out if that's the case.

From the link you just posted: "Rosenstein said there is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the scheme, nor is there any allegation that the scheme affected the outcome of the election."

Two questions: are you prepared to concede POTUS was not in cahoots with Russia to alter our election?  And, ref the portion of your quote I bolded, do you think this process has restored faith in gov institutions?  Because my faith in DOJ/FBI has been significantly degraded.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

From the link you just posted: "Rosenstein said there is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the scheme, nor is there any allegation that the scheme affected the outcome of the election."

Two questions: are you prepared to concede POTUS was not in cahoots with Russia to alter our election?  And, ref the portion of your quote I bolded, do you think this process has restored faith in gov institutions?  Because my faith in DOJ/FBI has been significantly degraded.

 

Actually being in cahoots with the Russians and possibly lying saying you knew nothing of the interference and/or trying to prevent investigators from finding out about your direct involvement, knowledge, and possible role in the interference are vastly differently things.  Nixon wasn't in the Watergate hotel planting recording devices yet he still told us he wasn't a crook and quit being President before was impeached.  Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s wait for the conclusion of the Mueller investigation to make any final judgments. Today’s announcement was not the first indictment and my prediction is that it will not be the last.

Re: faith in institutions. I’m for letting the FBI and DOJ do their work without disparaging or discrediting what they’re doing. If the President and his administration officials are totally innocent as they claim they should be happy to do the same. Strong law enforcement institutions do their work on the level, indict the guilty and exonerate the innocent, and people believe their conclusions.

When judging today’s actors, ask yourself, “Is this how an innocent person would act?”

Nixon and his folks discredited the special counsel at the time and obstructed congressional and DOJ investigstions because they were guilty of knowing about and trying to cover up the watergate break-in. Clinton lied to the investigators and the American people because he DID in fact have sexual relations with that woman.

Time will hopefully reveal the truth and even though I’m somewhat impatient, I’m willing to wait and let the chips fall where they may. If Mueller concludes that POTUS is innocent of all crimes I plan on accepting that.

Edited by nsplayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Azimuth said:

Actually being in cahoots with the Russians and possibly lying saying you knew nothing of the interference and/or trying to prevent investigators from finding out about your direct involvement, knowledge, and possible role in the interference are vastly differently things. 

Sounds like your mind is made up regardless of the findings.  Am I wrong?

18 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Let’s wait for the conclusion of the Mueller investigation to make any final judgments. Today’s announcement was not the first indictment and my prediction is that it will not be the last........If Mueller concludes that POTUS is innocent of all crimes I plan on accepting that.

Ok, fair.  Although I'm uncertain Mueller will conclude POTUS is "innocent."  As implied above, he may simply conclude there's not enough evidence for charges but that is very different than "innocent" and will not help the nation heal. I'm concerned our country, already deeply divided, will have fault lines exacerbated by a continued investigation without a definitive ending.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

,will have fault lines exacerbated by a continued investigation without a definitive ending.  

If I was Putin I would consider this an outstanding result with few casualties. Mission accomplished! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) says:

"I don't think we'll know anywhere near the full story until [Mueller] issues his report," Casey said. "But once you get into the summer, and you get close to the election, I think it's a mistake for him to release it late. I think you should wait until after [the election]" Casey said."

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/374407-dem-senator-warns-mueller-against-issuing-russia-report-near-2018

So here are my questions:

1) If this investigation is non-partisan and Dems believe the American public deserves to know the outcome of the investigation, then why would a Democrat Senator want Mueller to wait until after the 2018 midterm elections to release the report?

2) If Democrats believe the Mueller report will be damning to the Trump administration/GOP, then from a partisan perspective, why wouldn't you want those results released before the election?

The only reason that makes sense to me is that he believes this won't hurt Trump/the GOP.  I just find his remarks quite interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/michael-flynns-plea-reversal-uncover-federal-corruption/

On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.

 

So, to recap: the Administration in office during the election knew of Russian IO and intentionally did nothing https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/politics/jeh-johnson-testimony-russian-election-hacking.html

Now, the prized scalp taken might have to be stitched back.

And the Democrats don't want the result released until after the election (see recap point #1)

But #neverTrump or something, I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know y'all won't believe this, but there is the idea that these kinds of things shouldn't be political bomb-shells dropped right before an election. I think that's what Casey is getting at, and would also note that he has absolutely no say in what Mueller does or when he does it whatsoever.

Not dropping what can appear like partisan bombshells goes for the original Russia hacking when Obama was in the seat. As soon as McConnell said he wouldn't sign on to a joint statement that sealed the deal. Think back to how you would have reacted if the Obama admin put out an intel report saying that the Russians were running an influence campaign trying to elect Trump while the GOP leaders in Congress said that they disagreed. "Politicizing intel!! It's a brazen move against Trump!!" And like, it would have seemed that way even if the report was a very straight-laced accounting of the facts as the IC knew them.

I somewhat feel the same way about the Mueller investigation now. It would be better if it wasn't an October surprise right before the midterms, assuming it'll be nearing conclusion by then. I think that's what Senator Casey is getting at...anything released right before an election will inevitably influence it, and that's generally not what you want even if some of those bombshell thing help your side.

That being said, I'd default to letting the special counsel be on whatever timetable the investigation requires, because even saying anything at this point gets politicized, as evidenced by your questions about Sen. Casey's motives. Let the investigation play out and let the chips fall where they may. None of us in the peanut gallery can do anything else anyways.

Edited by nsplayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political considerations should have zero bearing on a criminal investigation.  Then or now.  Regarding Hillary or Trump.

I keep thinking of that blindfolded lady holding the scales.  

If someone is a crook, then the election be damned.  Book 'em, Dan-o...

 

Edited by brickhistory
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×