Jump to content
Baseops Forums
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, drewpey said:

Imagine being asked if your your political affiliation on your SF86.

Or to upload a YouTube video, or like certain things on Facebook, or giving a conservative talk on a college campus.  Identity politics are a dangerous game festering on one side of the aisle, and it backfired.  I think SS is right, the (D)s short term political gain is coming home to roost.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember?

That dastardly American and his 16 year old son executed by order of the President without benefit of trial?

The Attorney General of the United States being held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over DOJ documents that were subpoenaed? (First ever such contempt finding)

The use of the IRS against one political ideology?

The FBI deciding that multiple actions that would've landed any of us for a long time in Leavenworth draws a "She was careless."

The unilateral overturning of American bankruptcy laws?

Telling the Senate when it was session despite what the Senate had declared?

The use of the IC to surveil and then unmask several hundred American citizens?

A dead of night jet filled with cash landing in Tehran?

57 states?  A Navy corpseman?

A JV ISIS?

Nah, me neither...

Brennan:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-director-john-brennan-apologizes-for-search-of-senate-computers/2014/07/31/28004b18-18c6-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e4bc27014c6b

As to the list of braying senior security clearance holders:

Their value to various corporations/think tanks/media depends on access to their successors who are still in the game, thus the clearances hold significant financial value to each holder.  Once their personal contacts bingo out, they fade off quickly into obscurity.

I don't think Brennan is particularly wealthy.  This was a direct hit on his bank account.

Watch what Trump does, not necessarily what he says.

 

Oh, and as to Trump savaging Mattis at some future point, there is that little catch-all, "serve at the pleasure of the President."  

As a guy said, "Elections have consequences."

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

That’s the whole thing that drives me nuts with this every outrage is a 13/10 in the news cycle. Trump isn’t playing some new game, he’s just not nearly as good at playing it as the career snakes that came before him. Nor is he being given the benefit of that reflection by his critics who hear any past precedent of that behavior and scream “whataboutism!”

I've said that since the primary victory. Trump as president was only possible because "the establishment," over the course of decades, dissolved any moral accountability in the underlying system of government. They cheated, they stole, they lied, they enriched themselves and their circles, they abused, and they evaded punishment. Eventually these practices became ubiquitous, and all that was left was the facade of decency and honor. But a facade cannot protect the system from intruders. Enter Trump, who's only distinction is that his words and appearance match his/their actions.

 

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Conservatives love to undermine institutions for immediate benefit without regard to the future

Nuclear option

Pen and Phone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear option
Pen and Phone


For all of Mitch’s faults (and there are plenty), I’m actually really happy to see him maintain the high road on calls from the peanut gallery and Trump to go simple majority in order to “get stuff done.”

Doubtful that others would do the same. Especially not after that giant public gavel walk a few years ago with Nancy and pals. It would be retribution plain and simple to which I’d say vendetta is never a sound political policy of discourse.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lawman said:

For all of Mitch’s faults (and there are plenty), I’m actually really happy to see him maintain the high road on calls from the peanut gallery and Trump to go simple majority in order to “get stuff done.”

Doubtful that others would do the same. Especially not after that giant public gavel walk a few years ago with Nancy and pals. It would be retribution plain and simple to which I’d say vendetta is never a sound political policy of discourse.

 

You do realize that he escalated the issue and extended the nuclear option (ie simple majority) to Supreme Court nominees right?

Reid and the Dems changed the rule in 2013 for lower court and admin appointees. In 2017 McConnell and the GOP maintained that precedent and several cabinet secretaries would not have received the previously-required 60 votes.  McConnell and the GOP then also went further, and have put one (soon to be two) justices on the Supreme Court with a simple majority. McConnell and the GOP effectively also gained one of those SCOTUS seats by another rule/norm change when they refused to even hold a hearing on Merrick Garland rather than just voting him down (which they had the power to do) if they really objected to him on court.

So neither side is clean here, but McConnell especially get absolutely zero Boy Scout Points for playing by the rules in the Senate. I share your surprise that he has not moved to a simple majority for regular legislation, but that’s only due to my very low opinion of his leadership, ie I expect the worst. The fact that the GOP President is publically pushing him to go even further is telling when it comes to how far we’ve fallen in terms of what is considered acceptable.

And interestingly enough, I am probably on the pro side of doing away with the fullibuster entirely. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear on who did what and when.

Edited by nsplayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

playing by the rules in the Senate.

What exactly did Harry Reid think would happen when/if the majority changed hands?

My guess is that he didn't really care because he was mostly interested in the here/now and his own power.  McConnell did the same thing, but to the next logical level.  When the majority changes again in November the next Senate Pres will up the ante again.  It's the state of our politics right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Homestar said:

What exactly did Harry Reid think would happen when/if the majority changed hands?

I'm convinced that both he and Obama thought it never would.  At a minimum, they felt they had 8 more years of helping the GOP adjust even more to the left before it did.  After all, they had deep state, MSM, and the entirety of academia in their hip pocket.  How could they fail?

Edited by HU&W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Homestar said:

What exactly did Harry Reid think would happen when/if the majority changed hands?

My guess is that he didn't really care because he was mostly interested in the here/now and his own power.  McConnell did the same thing, but to the next logical level.  When the majority changes again in November the next Senate Pres will up the ante again.  It's the state of our politics right now.

Of course Reid knew the GOP would want revenge, it's our recent race-to-the-bottom spate of party-first partisanship and like I said, neither side has clean hands here. My big point was the Mitch McConnell of all people does not get brownie points for following the rules as Lawnman implied. IMHO he is the worst offender of breaking the rules in the pursuit of raw partisan political power, but I also suspect that McConnell might actually take that as a compliment. Reid was a dirty old political fighter but McConnell did him one better in the end by stealing the Scalia SCOTUS seat.

27 minutes ago, HU&W said:

I'm convinced that both he and Obama thought it never would.  At a minimum, they felt they had 8 more years of helping the GOP adjust even more to the left before it did.

That's just not accurate.

History lesson: the Dems won control of the Senate in the 2006 midterms and picked up more seats in the 2008 presidential, which combined gave them a substantial majority. The GOP gained 6 back in the 2010 midterms, the Dems got +2 in the 2012 presidential, but the GOP got +9 in the 2014 midterms and re-took the chamber. They've been in power since then, but it's fairly likely that the Dems will be able to retake the Senate in the 2020 presidential, pending results of the upcoming 2018 midterms.

No serious political analyst or politician believes in thousand year reichs. They all know the pendulum swings back and forth as voters get fed up and want change. In fact that's exactly what drives the most political players to want to break the rules and use their power immediately, long-term consequences be damned...they'll all be gone anyways by time the chickens come home to roost.

Really, you generally don't accumulate power for power's sake, you build it up so you can get things done and if doing those things costs you the power, well I hope you swung for the fences. It's what the Dems got wrong with Obamacare (they tried to compromise and had to kowtow to conservative Dems not wanting to be too bold) and what the GOP got right when many of them sold their souls to support Trump, knowing they could justify all the indignities in exchange for conservatives on the Supreme Court, tax cuts, and "owning the Libs," all of which have already been delivered.

It's the same short-term thinking that causes publicly-traded companies to obsess over quarterly numbers to the detriment of workers and sometimes the long-term success of the business, and what causes shitty leaders in all places, including the AF, to do what's best for them and their next career move and care little for the real long-term consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

That's just not accurate.

History lesson: the Dems won control of the Senate in the 2006 midterms and picked up more seats in the 2008 presidential, which combined gave them a substantial majority. The GOP gained 6 back in the 2010 midterms, the Dems got +2 in the 2012 presidential, but the GOP got +9 in the 2014 midterms and re-took the chamber. They've been in power since then, but it's fairly likely that the Dems will be able to retake the Senate in the 2020 presidential, pending results of the upcoming 2018 midterms.

No serious political analyst or politician believes in thousand year reichs. They all know the pendulum swings back and forth as voters get fed up and want change. In fact that's exactly what drives the most political players to want to break the rules and use their power immediately, long-term consequences be damned...they'll all be gone anyways by time the chickens come home to roost.

Really, you generally don't accumulate power for power's sake, you build it up so you can get things done and if doing those things costs you the power, well I hope you swung for the fences. It's what the Dems got wrong with Obamacare (they tried to compromise and had to kowtow to conservative Dems not wanting to be too bold) and what the GOP got right when many of them sold their souls to support Trump, knowing they could justify all the indignities in exchange for conservatives on the Supreme Court, tax cuts, and "owning the Libs," all of which have already been delivered.

It's the same short-term thinking that causes publicly-traded companies to obsess over quarterly numbers to the detriment of workers and sometimes the long-term success of the business, and what causes shitty leaders in all places, including the AF, to do what's best for them and their next career move and care little for the real long-term consequences.

NS, I'm struggling to respond.  You said my post wasn't accurate, then you described how the Obama admin knew better, but they did it anyway.  I'm in violent agreement with most of your post.  They academically knew better than trusting in their durable reich, but they overstepped anyway and created their own monster.

Edited by HU&W
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nsplayr said:

No serious political analyst or politician believes in thousand year reichs. They all know the pendulum swings back and forth as voters get fed up and want change. In fact that's exactly what drives the most political players to want to break the rules and use their power immediately, long-term consequences be damned...they'll all be gone anyways by time the chickens come home to roost.

Really, you generally don't accumulate power for power's sake, you build it up so you can get things done and if doing those things costs you the power, well I hope you swung for the fences. It's what the Dems got wrong with Obamacare (they tried to compromise and had to kowtow to conservative Dems not wanting to be too bold) and what the GOP got right when many of them sold their souls to support Trump, knowing they could justify all the indignities in exchange for conservatives on the Supreme Court, tax cuts, and "owning the Libs," all of which have already been delivered.

There’s a lot to unpack here. First off, that’s true. No one that I know expects a “thousand year reich”. However, I disagree with the idea that all players want to break the rules while they have power. The pendulum always swings back, and when it does... the bill comes due. This MAD type philosophy is what has kept both parties in check for most of our country’s existence. The Republicans understand this currently, it’s why they haven’t gone full simple majority. I guess you can say they did it on the SCOTUS nominations, but let’s be real. Harry Reid did it with every court but SCOTUS. It’s not some egregious display of power for McConnell to add one more court to the list.

Dems failed on Obamacare because they didn’t go single-payer (enough)? Respectfully disagree here. They didn’t have the votes among their own for single-payer, so Obamacare is what we got instead. It wasn’t done in some magnanimous fashion to help Republicans like you seem to imply. 40 Democrats in the House voted against Obamacare. If it was single-payer or more government centric, that number would have easily doubled, if not more.

Just as a little side note, Republicans weren’t advocating for FDR-style “court packing” during Obama’s term. They played the waiting game and won the lotto. Dems on the other hand, appear ready and willing to blow up the system to get their way in the era of Trump. 

https://newrepublic.com/article/148358/democrats-prepare-pack-supreme-court

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, nobody wants to talk about POTUS’s former campaign manager and personal attorney both becoming felons yesterday?

Or about Cohen’s assertion under oath that he was directed to violate election law by his client, the Donald?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I’d say that’s pretty bad. You’ll probably hear a lot of people argue that Obama also violated campaign finance laws and paid a $375k fine, but those were for missed reporting deadlines and delays in returning donations that were too large. Directing someone to break the law by paying a large sum in hush money is in a different league.

I’m convinced they are all crooks and if we had special investigations on every politician we could probably turn them all in to felons. Bring on the Convention of States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mcbush said:

So, nobody wants to talk about POTUS’s former campaign manager and personal attorney both becoming felons yesterday?

Or about Cohen’s assertion under oath that he was directed to violate election law by his client, the Donald?

No, they’re too busy watching Fox News about that illegal killing that college girl and trying to craft a response somehow using Benghazi and emails at home. I wonder what the Hannity/Trump daily phone call tone was after the verdict and plead were announced...

A Marine Reservist Rep. Duncan Hunter from california and his wife we’re indicted yesterday for campaign fund misuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." - Lavrentiy Beria, head of NKVD under Stalin

Which is ironic given that this whole thing investigating Trump is supposed to be about Russian, well...something regarding the 2016 election.

Yet not one person has been indicted for anything Russian.

Shady lawyers got caught doing shady things and are going to jail.  I'm not sad about them.

But how would you fare under the eye of a prosecutor who has an open-ended remit to investigate you, everyone around you, everyone around them, and so on?

If you're good with that, congratulations.

I'm agin' it.

But if you set up your own server and conducted years worth of government business including the trafficking of TS/SCI and above e-mails despite the specific law that says you can't operate that way, I also offer congratulations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Yet not one person has been indicted for anything Russian.

I mean, except for:

  • Michael Flynn (pleaded guilty to lying about Russian contacts during the campaign)
  • Rick Gates (pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States)
  • George Papadopoulos (pleaded guilty to lying about contacts with Russians)
  • 13 Russian nationals & 3 Russian companies (indicted for election interference), and
  • 12 Russian military intelligence officers (indicted for hacking and related crimes during the 2016 election)

And that list totally takes newly-minted felon Paul Manafort off the table for the purposes of this discussion.

This info is all a very cursory overview from the #1 google return when you type in, "russia investigation indictments," and was published by Fox News yesterday. The full text of all of those indictments are also available to read online I believe.

So basically, other than all of those, you're right!

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

But how would you fare under the eye of a prosecutor who has an open-ended remit to investigate you, everyone around you, everyone around them, and so on?

I would hold up very well, never having committed any crimes more serious than traffic offenses and never having associated myself with shady-ass individuals. I'm assuming the same can be said for the vast majority of people reading this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

 

I would hold up very well, never having committed any crimes more serious than traffic offenses and never having associated myself with shady-ass individuals. I'm assuming the same can be said for the vast majority of people reading this.

We have different views on how our Constitution works then.

Shocking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

I mean, except for:

  • Michael Flynn (pleaded guilty to lying about Russian contacts during the campaign)
  • Rick Gates (pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States)
  • George Papadopoulos (pleaded guilty to lying about contacts with Russians)
  • 13 Russian nationals & 3 Russian companies (indicted for election interference), and
  • 12 Russian military intelligence officers (indicted for hacking and related crimes during the 2016 election)

You act as if brickhistory doesn't know those things. It's not willful ignorance on his part - he just doesn't care. It could come out that Donald Trump himself directed illegal payments be made directly to Russian state hackers with the intent of subverting American democracy and he wouldn't care - because his guy won. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this Fur Ball....keep it up for me....makes getting old easier....back to my wine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brickhistory said:

We have different views on how our Constitution works then.

Shocking...

What do you mean? Genuinely curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean, except for:

  • Michael Flynn (pleaded guilty to lying about Russian contacts during the campaign)
  • Rick Gates (pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States)
  • George Papadopoulos (pleaded guilty to lying about contacts with Russians)
  • 13 Russian nationals & 3 Russian companies (indicted for election interference), and
  • 12 Russian military intelligence officers (indicted for hacking and related crimes during the 2016 election)

And that list totally takes newly-minted felon Paul Manafort off the table for the purposes of this discussion.

This info is all a very cursory overview from the #1 google return when you type in, "russia investigation indictments," and was published by Fox News yesterday. The full text of all of those indictments are also available to read online I believe.

So basically, other than all of those, you're right!

I would hold up very well, never having committed any crimes more serious than traffic offenses and never having associated myself with shady-ass individuals. I'm assuming the same can be said for the vast majority of people reading this.

This is what I honestly don't get. Muller's mandate is to "Investigate Russian meddling or involvement in the 2016 election".

  • Flynn did Ukranian lobbying before the campaign ever began, was charged with perjury because he didn't specify some of those previous relationships in his first FBI interview. Absolutely no mention of meddling in his indictment or plea deal.
  • Gates did the same as Flynn, worked for a Ukranian lobbying gig. This guy even pled out, but again... no mention of meddling.
  • Papadopoulos was hired by the Trump campaign to set up meetings with foreign officials. He was caught in perjury because he didn't give correct dates on when he met officials and forgot to mention a professor in London who he tried to interface with. No mention of him meddling either.
  • The Russian nationals/companies are the real culprits behind this... and it's great to charge them, but we all know they'll never see the light of day. The GRU folks will probably get a damn medal for all of this.
  • Manafort was doing lobbying for Russian-related groups and apparently had some tax issues. No case was made that he colluded with the Russians, just that he had a really bad spending problem.

We're no closer to learning anything about the "meddling" and "collusion" that allegedly occurred in the 2016 election. Instead, we're busy trying people for petty crimes and tax evasion. Which is fine I guess, but seems like a pretty weak payout for millions of dollars in Muller's pocket and almost 2 years of investigating...

As for your comment about being Mr. Clean, I hope you’re right. But, if you can't seriously step back and imagine a theoretical scenario where you (or a family member) are innocent and a man with unlimited power, authority and money like Muller is searching for any way to make you guilty... Then you're doing yourself a disservice intellectually.

Edited by Kiloalpha
Spelling
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jaded said:

You act as if brickhistory doesn't know those things. It's not willful ignorance on his part - he just doesn't care. It could come out that Donald Trump himself directed illegal payments be made directly to Russian state hackers with the intent of subverting American democracy and he wouldn't care - because his guy won. 

Kind of like if his lawyer paid $50k in cash to an unknown technology company for "tech services" during and in connection with the campaign that was hidden in the Stormy Daniels payout?

Page 16 of the criminal information filed in Cohen's case yesterday mentioned a reimbursement for "tech services" that Cohen solicited "on behalf of the campaign". Coincidentally page 34 of the Steele dossier discusses Cohen's involvement in making "deniable cash payments to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction..."

The $50k cash payment having been made not long after Cohen was reportedly in Prague.

Why would the campaign need to make a payment to a legit tech company doing legal tech work through the Trump Organization, and why would it need to be made surreptitiously through Cohen, and in cash no less? 

Cohen, of course, being Trump's "fixer" with no official role in the campaign.

Edited by Vertigo
A word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not discounting your detective work, but $50k seems like a cheap price to rig an election in the most powerful nation in the world. I would think they would have asked for millions, especially from someone who is a billionaire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jaded said:

You act as if brickhistory doesn't know those things. It's not willful ignorance on his part - he just doesn't care. It could come out that Donald Trump himself directed illegal payments be made directly to Russian state hackers with the intent of subverting American democracy and he wouldn't care - because his guy won. 

Trump is not "my guy."  I recognize him for what he is - recent Democrat, serial philanderer, etc., etc., etc.

What he represents is my "anti-guy." 

But thanks for the interweb psychoanalysis anyway.

As I have stated repeatedly, he beat 16 conventional GOP candidates to win the nomination.  He beat the anointed Hillary.  He shocked the system in a way it didn't expect and doesn't like.

The Beast/Leviathan/System/Deep State, call it what you will, i.e., the conventional political establishment complete with revolving doors and cozy use of taxpayer money, has very vested interests in not letting the system be changed.  It is and has been very lucrative to itself.  (See the list of richest counties in the US and wonder why so many of them surround DC).  If Trump is allowed to succeed, the stranglehold on the levers of gravy-flowing is threatened.

So the losers of the 2016 election are trying to undo the results via extra-legal means, often with the help of many of the Republicans who gravy-train boat (er…) is being rocked.  Those grubby plebians out there in flyover country simply must be beaten back into submission.

I'm agin' that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang, even Steven Tyler/Aerosmith have turned on the POTUS.

Steven Tyler sends Trump cease-and-desist letter over playing Aerosmith songs at rallies; http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/22/steven-tyler-sends-trump-cease-and-desist-letter-over-playing-aerosmith-songs-at-rallies.html

 

:<) Here's a few potentially befitting songs to replace these Aerosmith tunes with, at future campaign rallies, if this downward spiral continues much longer. Hopefully these new campaign rallies songs will cheer up the growing list of indicted/convicted members of the 2016 campaign/White House staff :<) 

 

My #1 Choice; Folsom Prison Blues;

My #2 Choice; Jailhouse Rock;

 

Edited by waveshaper

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



×