Making Sense of the Sexual Predator Epidemic
The dominoes started toppling slowly: comic genius and father-figure Bill Cosby — long pause — followed by Fox News stalwarts Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly. Then, with the coming of fall, the tumbling dominoes began to pick up speed: Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louis CK, Senate candidate (and alleged underage girl-chaser) Roy Moore, Al Franken, Charlie Rose — even, for God’s sake, that big-hearted nonagenarian ex-president, Bush the Elder. (Not prudent, George.) And those are just the most famous among a growing roster of prominent political and media figures who stand accused of sexual misbehavior today.
Franken’s offense appears to have been little more than a schoolboy prank with a free-spirited female colleague in the company of their show-business peers; Bush’s was most likely a combination of wheelchair-bound frustration, misplaced hands and creeping senility. The others were considerably more offensive: rape and other forms of sex under duress, lewd texting, forcing unwilling females to observe naked man-parts behind closed doors. There’s no excusing that kind of abuse, especially when it becomes chronic.
But here’s where we moderates need to exercise our wisdom in the midst of public hysteria: not all sexual offenses are created equal. They belong on a spectrum that ranges from staring at a woman’s cleavage and inadvertently touching bare skin to the more lascivious and predatory forms of abuse mentioned above.
Case in point: this past Wednesday, the news broke that Today host Matt Lauer and public radio legend Garrison Keillor had been fired by their respective networks for improper sexual behavior. Let’s compare and contrast the plights of the two newly unemployed men.
The casually married Lauer (he and his wife lead essentially separate lives) was supposed to have accosted a female NBC colleague during the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi and continued the relationship back in New York. (If his advances were offensive, I wondered, why did the “relationship” survive the return trip to Rockefeller Center?) But soon the full picture emerged, and it wasn’t pretty: we were looking at a preening sexual bully who seemed to be enamored of his own irresistible chick-magnet appeal, whether his victims found him appealing or not. You’d think a man who makes upward of $20 million a year would be a little more careful about retaining his livelihood.
Garrison Keillor, on the other hand, is an overgrown Nordic elf — a scruffy old scribe with a resonant voice and a genius for storytelling. Much like his legendary Norwegian bachelor farmers, he claims to be socially backward and physically standoffish — perhaps because he’s reputed to be somewhere at the high-functioning end of the autism scale — or possibly because he was raised Lutheran.
One woman — a friend of Keillor’s, no less — recently stepped forward with an accusation. Minnesota Public Radio, his longtime employer, was vague about the alleged “improper behavior,” but Keillor insisted that he was simply trying to console his distressed friend. He reached around her back to comfort her, he tells us, and his hand slipped inside her shirt to touch BARE SKIN. She became uncomfortable; he apologized and assumed that would be the end of it. After all, he and the woman continued to be friends until her lawyers called.
So after nearly half a century as a public radio legend and arguable national treasure, good old Garrison was sacked. Yes, he had already retired from his iconic Prairie Home Companion radio show, but here’s the worst of it: Minnesota Public Radio is severing all ties with Keillor — dropping his daily Writer’s Almanac feature, canceling reruns of his vintage Prairie Home Companion shows (never again will we hear that incomparably orotund voice!) and even changing the name of the show to obliterate all traces of Garrisonian influence. Out, damned spot!
In short, total erasure. A lifetime of wise, witty and often hilarious wordsmithing over the airwaves — expunged just like that, over a single accusation that may or may not have any merit.
Did the radio network weigh his words against hers? No, the accusation was enough. Were there any witnesses? None to speak of. Might her memory of the incident have been warped by the passage of time? It’s happened before, but it didn’t matter. Will more sordid details emerge? It’s always possible, but I’m not holding my breath. Touching bare skin without permission was enough to bring down a broadcasting giant.
It’s pretty clear that “she said” counts more than “he said” — as perhaps it should in cases of sexual misbehavior. Short of DNA evidence or an incriminating video, a court of law would have a hard time determining whether an alleged sexual offense took place as described by the plaintiff — but that doesn’t mean all (or even most) accused men should be let off the hook. Still, it boggles the mind — my mind, anyway — that a minor miscue merits the same punishment as serial sexual harassment: i.e., destruction of career.
I can recall several times I’ve zeroed in on a female acquaintance for a quick social kiss — and pecked her on the neck instead of the cheek… or wrapped my hand around her hip instead of her back. Should I face lawsuits and disgrace (not that I have anything to lose professionally these days) because of my inadvertent fumbling?
When we start dating a woman, will we have to sign a contract, as a friend suggested with tongue in cheek, that the relationship is consensual — and back it up on our smartphones? If a woman wears a low-cut dress and our eyes linger on her shapely bosom a half-second too long, can we be accused of sexual harassment? Will male executives no longer be allowed to date their secretaries because of the “power imbalance”? Where does it stop? Where’s the common sense?
Let’s face it: women have always been drawn to powerful, high-status men. Not all women, but enough for the generalization to hold. And powerful, high-status men are famous for their hyperactive libidos. Not all of them, again, but enough to make us wonder about the link between sex and power.
Do oversexed men naturally gravitate to positions of power, or does the power give their libidos an explosive jolt of Red Bull? My suspicion is that it works both ways. Oversexed men most likely find their libidinous propensities enhanced once they taste the magic elixir of power.
The trouble with powerful men is that they often abuse the women who find them irresistible — and even those who don’t. It’s not easy to overcome a million years of hominid biology, but you’d think any man capable of surviving 16 years of schooling could exercise enough self-restraint to tame his Neanderthal urges — at least in the office. No woman should have to put out for a man she doesn’t love in order to keep her job or win a well-deserved promotion. Simple enough, right?
But let’s think about those socially backward, introspective men like Garrison Keillor — or me, for that matter — or most of my male friends — who could be made to suffer the same consequences as the serial abusers because of a single misinterpreted gesture — or simply through guilt by reason of maleness. If Mister Rogers were still around, I could imagine him being sacked for patting a female hand a little too tenderly.
Meanwhile, a powerful man who confessed to numerous instances of unilateral sexual misbehavior occupies the White House. But so did Clinton. So did JFK and LBJ. What else is new?
Those unrestrained alpha males aren’t just making life difficult for the women they abuse; they’re making it difficult for the rest of us men. When our every move is suspect, how do we survive in an office environment, flirt with potential mates or get a date?
Maybe the alphas have overstayed their welcome. Patriarchy is passé, after all. Women outnumber men four-to-three among recent American college graduates; they represent the future. I just hope that when they think about us men, they remember how to differentiate between the pigs and the princes.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate and author of Lifestyles of the Doomed, available wherever e-books are sold.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Power corrupts etc etc……You have to have a type A personality to aspire to these kinds of jobs in the first place,meaning you have to have be self opinionated and pushy from birth.This coupled with our male dominated society where these types of public personality, attract the viewers/listeners and make big bucks for their employers,ensures that their sexual excesses attract the “Nudge,nudge,wink,wink” type of reaction.How many times have we heard later that millions of $ have been spent by these corporations covering up past offences ? If I was a woman faced with this type of harassment I would be intimidated regarding my future and I fully understand why these atrocities have not been reported in the past.
It is now in the open and these same corporations cannot ignore the facts any more !! The ones I am most concerned about are those girls and women who do not have the ambitions to climb the corporate ladder but just want to earn a living in peace and security but suffer the same humilities. They will not attract the publicity of the high flyers but this happens every day in workplaces throughout the world.There must be a grass roots complaint system that will help the average working girl/woman !!
“Not all sexual offenses are created equal”
“Out, damned spot!”
Hi Rick! This is an important topic regarding our civilization. Yes this topic is important, but the amount of media coverage the individual offenses are receiving is disgusting, ridiculous, sickening, preposterous, diabolical, and warped. Your treatment of this topic is much more measured and moderate than mine is going to be (I think the hysteria and insanity of most of this whole situation is another symptom of our warped, insulated, and assanine PC culture) but I want to see if I can post as I don’t remember my damn password.
Thanks Rick, for the new topic and your well reasoned post.
Of course, like many aspects of our modern culture, there are a whole bunch of factors involved, and a big tangle of “historical threads” leading up to it, but let me focus on two–one more general and one more specific…
The general one:
The further we humans get removed from something that used to be referred to as “living close to the land,” i.e. “real life,” i.e. reality, and the more insulated and removed we become (fantasy world, see Plato’s Cave, fast forward to millions of highly specialized idiots forming ideas about life from images zooming past their eyeballs everyday at 30 frames per second…), then the more warped and bizarre our ideas become, including our ideas of what it means to be human. It used to be, for thousands of years, that many civilized folks thought of humans as flawed creatures who hopefully learned from mistakes, who sometimes needed to be forgiven, and who sometimes needed to pay retribution in money or punishment, but many offenses did not equate with a complete and total labelling and condemnation of the person. If someone oversteps their bounds, then let the offended party demand an apology, or take it to court, civil court or criminal court, and let the parties move on in private, without this childish, hen clucking, gossip hysteria over touching! Now, Cosby drugging people or other aggressive attacks, that’s criminal. As Rick was saying, not all offenses are equal. But this “he touched me” shit–shut the he’ll up. That’s news????
The specific thread is warped feminism manifesting itself via a liberal-progressive dominated mass media that is far more disgusting than men trying to get jiggy with it.
Oh I wasn’t nearly as venomous as I wanted to be. Crimes are one thing. Defend your space. Prosecute if violated. The namby-pamby tattle-taling gossip going on in the media these days—we need that big electronic disruption thing to take out all non essential communication. Maybe a plague.
I agree overall with what you said, Pat, with the exception of faulting the Liberal press for it, unless you mean ALL the press by definition is liberal – because FOX and it’s affiliates, and all of Murdocks Conservative newspapers have been OVERFLOWING with those sexual misconduct stories (except for Conservative instances, of course).
Pat;
Very little of what I am reading is “Oh, he touched me”.!
A great deal of this is sexual assault – i.e. crimes.
Most of the remainder is Sexual Harrasment.
Distinctions are absolutely critically important.
If force is involved – even small amounts, then we are talking crimes,
where possible those should be prosecuted and those prosecutions should be adjudicated by jurries using the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Many of these allegations would not survive that.
Those allegatations that do not involve force are not govenrments business.
But that does NOT mean they are not our business.
Just as we can choose not to attend professional football games because players are kneeling for the national anthem. We can make the same kind of choices about what entertainment and media we watch.
Jobs are not a right. Especially not when you are making 10’s of millions a year.
If Fox or NBC or MPR want to can you because you have been a bit gropy.
That is fine with me.
I am glad that Fox canned OReilly – before all this firestorm.
While they should not have allowed Ailes and Oreilly to do the things they did,
Still the Murdock family acted to clean house – before everyone else.
I would also suggest regarding some of these other instances where we have heard little – beyond minor allegations and a quick termination, There is likely ALOT more that we do not know.
Either the businesses in question ALREADY wanted to can these guys for other reasons and the first hint of sexual misconduct just was sufficient to motivate them to act,
OR the business was well aware of the problem – probably much more so than the public and acted quickly BEFORE we find out how much more than a little slap and tickle was going on.
Finally, sorry, no I do not have any sympathy here.
We are not discussing dorky little 19 year olds with sucky interpersonally skills bumbling the process of learning how to relate as an adult.
These are all affluent, powerful, capable, wealthy people.
Everyone of them could have easily afforded 2500/night escorts if they needed to go outside the norms a bit.
This is not acceptable – particularly from those in these roles.
I did not vote for Trump, for many reasons, but the Access Hollywood tape was enough.
I did not vote for Clinton – because in addition to having abysmal policies and being a crook, she enables exactly this kind of conduct in Bill, and she then maliciously targets his victims.
Trump has been elected and as best as we seem to know, he is keeping his pants up, and his hands where they belong.
He is the president now, and though I did not vote for him and do not like him much as a person, I can still hope for his and our success – and be happy because though he might be a lousy person, he seems to be a pretty good president.
Good post.
I would note:
In many of these instances there could well be lots of backstory we do not know.
Rose and Lauer were canned because aside from the allegations that were made public their employer was well aware of much more misconduct – and likely at risk fr liability.
I do not know about Garrison Keillor – sorry, I have always found him annoying and his humour flat. But alot of people like him.
Maybe MPR know more than we do. There is also a tiny bit of the “cosby factor” – though cosby’s offenses are really creepy. Regardless, the “coby factor” whihc I also think was in play with Rose is that Keillor and Rose have an image is moral examples.
The consequences of minor moral failure by those who set themselves up as moral examples is far greater than the consequences for people who make no claims to high morality.
Trump has had a lifelong reputation as a skirt chaser. None of the allegations against Trump are surprising. Further Trump’s conduct was aggressive, but at the same time – he did seem to take “no” for an answer. In otherwords he did things seeking a sexual/romantic relationship that I think are unacceptable, but backed off when they failed.
Many of these people did not.
I am more disturbed by Franken that you. Franken’s conduct is NOT close to consensual.
It is also not in the context or persuing a relationship.
i.e. this is not Bad dating skills. Moore as an example seems to have the most repugnant dating skills of any human I am aware of, an an unnatural attraction to very young women.
But he eventually married a women much younger than he, and from what I can tell has been faithful to her. This does NOT diminish the HUGE yuk factor in Moore’s conduct which seems to either be or dance very near rape.
Regardless, I am addressing a point. There is a big difference between crappy dating skills and the worst of these people – where it is not about relationships, it is probably not about sex – it is about power and about demeaning the women involved.
One of my problems with Franken is that though his actual misconduct is small, I do not read him as merely awkward at sexual relationships. I read him more as a mild predator.
Finally – I have no sympathy if people lose their jobs – regardless of whether they are “awkward daters” or “sexual predators”. Nor do I think we need to engage in deep introspection regarding the veracity of the claims. A job is not a right. You can get canned for no reason at all.
You want control of your own employment – work for yourself.
When you F’up there – you still have a job, you just do not get paid.
I have much more concern when government is involved.
In my community over the past several decades we have had a spate of criminal prosecutions for “sex crimes” that are mostly yuky consentual sex – police officers, teachers, and the like.
Today it is nearly impossible to fire a teacher of a police officer.
It is easier to convict them of a crime.
We have that backwards. Teachers who sleep with students – should be canned. PERIOD.
But most should not got to jail. The same with police.
When we prosecute people for crimes – including “sex crimes” we need to return to “the reasonable doubt standard” – we are far from that for everything not just sex crimes.
We are far from “better 10 guilty go free than on innocent man be jailed.”
The Obama Title IX mess was similarly disturbing.
While a college is not government – this was government driven action.
Anyway, I do not think this is easy. and I do not think we are ever going to get it perfect.
But overall I think the current explosion of revelations and dire consequences are good.
Ailes is dead, OReilly is gone – Fox initially looked bad, but now appears way ahead of the curve.
If we clean out the perves in the media and hollywood – fine with me.
I would like to see the same regarding politics – but that is harder.
I would be happy to see Moore, lose, Franken resign, Conyers, gone. Hillary and Bill in Jail and someone besides Trump as president
But politics is harder. It is more disconnected from public ire.
I understand that some of the allegations are false or the conduct is minor.
But unless we are in court – I am not concerned.
I can have sympathy for someone who lost their job over a false allegation.
but the standard outside the law is not “reasonable doubt”.
Finally, I would qualify this by noting I am pretty much the antiTrump.
I had two dates in my entire life before dating my wife. It took 6 months from our first date until we held hands. I have never had “romantic” contact with any other woman in my life.
I am an uber geek. I am the geek, that geeks come to with geek problems.
I understand that everyone else is not the same. And I do grasp that forming relationships have alot of blundering that should not be criminalized.
But I do think that we can get this all right – not meaning conduct ourselves perfectly, but roughly work out the right consequences for conduct.
Miscommunications that do not involve force, do not belong in government,
Those that do need to meet that reasonable doubt standard.
As things are at the moment – I think we need even more housecleaning – even if that means a few false allegations are treated seriously – out side the law.
I also think – with some reason that many women are pretty angry about this.
Both my daughter and my wife have come forward with events I was not aware of that are just not the world I want, and they are not “bad dating”.
I think that if democrats had put forth a candidate who was not a pervert or a pervert enabler in 2016 women would have destroyed Trump – But Clinton was not that candidate, nor was groper Biden, or rape fantasies Sanders. What surprises me is that so many of our public figures are so revolting.
In the 2017 elections in PA, it seemed that things did not go party line.
They went mostly down gender lines. Women were willing across the ballot.
Something we should think about maybe.
“Those unrestrained alpha males aren’t just making life difficult for the women they abuse; they’re making it difficult for the rest of us men. When our every move is suspect, how do we survive in an office environment, flirt with potential mates or get a date?”
Rick, my advice is to AVOID US woman like the plague, and look elsewhere for female companionship.
My current recommendation is South Korean women, who in general actually respect men (maleness) and treat them accordingly with respect.
And in that light I highly recommend watching “The Stranger” on Netflix – a fascinating crime-prosecutor-political corruption show (subtitled in English). It will help put in cultural perspective US messed up male-female relationships through the interactions of the characters, who work together in highly charged situations, but are not tangled up in American male female dysfunction. And as it’s 16 episodes long, it will keep you from inadvertant miscalculations with women in bars. 😏
Rick ….“When our every move is suspect, how do we survive in an office environment, flirt with potential mates or get a date?”
You use common sense!!!!!!!!!!
1. You keep your hands to yourself in ALL INSTANCES in the workplace or work related activities including office parties. The only touching is hand shakes when that is appropriate.
2. You avoid “flirting”. How do you know how each woman will view that?
3. You avoid off colored jokes in mixed company.
4. If your looking for a ” good time” you find it somewhere other than work!
5. If your looking for a long term relationship, you find it somewhere other than employees that work for you.
Yes, if your cruising the office for a date, your cruising for trouble. Find somewhere else to share your “Johnson”. If you dont and get accused, well stupid cant be cured. Ignorance is not knowing and that can be fixed. Stupid is knowing and still doing it.
But back to the political issue, we were first to know of inappropriate sexual activity when Bill Clinton was still in office. All others before him came to light years after they had left office. The press knew of JFK liaisons and kept them quite. But with Clinton, we brushed it off. Pelosi brushed off Conyers until the women put so much heat on her she had to reverse course. Voters brushed aside Trumps issues and elected him. Moore is now leading again in Alabama in many polls. Voters may say we dont care once again.
Maybe all the “me too” movement will convince men to keep their hands to themselves and give women no reason not to file a complaint if they dont. And any politician should be treated like any government employee accused of inappropriate activity. In many cases, they are suspended until the investigation is complete. If found to have sufficient evidence for court actions, they stay suspended unil the case is completed.
Ron, I think your thoughts on this are going completely in the wrong direction, south instead of north, upside down. #2 avoid flirting? Maybe you are old or that part of you is shut off, valves closed. Your list reminds me of people trying to survive in a communist or NazI regime: be careful what you say, be careful who you share thoughts with, play it safe at all times…good God man they got to you. You need an intervention! I could agree with your #5 regarding employees. One should wait until they resign and they find another job before inviting them to dinner! What? Sex is inappropriate now?
Ron, sorry about the closed valve comment. I wasn’t angrily attacking you. I am poking jovially as I am won’t to do. I am more or less flirting with you in a philosophical, non-sexual way!
Everyone, I flirt just about CONSTANTLY w most women at work, as my father taught me by example, and they flirt back, and it’s fun and gets non-PC humans through their work days and life with a sense of humor, and once in awhile a hot liaison to grease the gears between consenting adults!
Pat;
I would presume that you do not use force in any of this ?
If not it is not the business of the government.
I would also presume that whatever your interactions with others – if they are not reciprocated, you do not continue ?
Further, your employer is free to have whatever rules they wish regarding this, and to enforce them or not as they please.
Beyond that, I am most definitely NOT like you. But that is OK, people are different.
I do not care about your conduct in the workplace – if those you are engaging find it acceptable.
If those who wish to engage in flirting (or more) do so freely – and those who do not are free to not participate.
Because people are different, because one size does not fit all, because even the same person does not feel or behave the same throughout their lives,
It is hard to impossible to have rules that will work to cover everything.
But we can all accept that force is wrong, and its use can be punished by government.
Beyond that – particularly at work, our risks are being rejected or getting fired.
I do not have a problem with that.
Pat;
I agree, and this is also part of why government should mostly not be involved.
When we are going to use force, we need clear bright lines.
We do not take away some’s liberty or property without being pretty certain that we are right.
But everything in the world does not have clarity.
The initial parts of relationships are often messy and fumbling. There can be confusion about what each party wants.
There are some instances where we can and should dictate that no relationships should occur.
Teachers should not have relationships with students as an example.
There are lots of instances where they are less wise – workplace relationships are problematic.
I can understand why and employer would not want sex and romance to complicate business.
Regardless, people are going to connect with each other romantically and sexually.
You can not reduce their opportunties to do so to online apps and bars.
Some people are going to attempt to form relationships at work.
Further every effort to form a relationship is not reciprocal.
So miscommunications and mistakes are going to occur.
I think we can manage that. We will get it wrong possibly often, but we do not need laws dictating when and how to attempt to form relationships.
I would note that most of the stuff that is reaching the news is NOT really about forming relationships.
The actions of Weinstein, Spacey, OReilly, Lauer, …. are way past bad dating technique.
They are about abusing the power you have over others.
In the real wolrd – if we keep government out – except where actual force is used,
I think we can sort things out ourselves just fine.
Not 100% perfect all the time, but as best as can actually be done.
I do not think it is difficult to tell the difference between awkward attempts at workplace romance and the misconduct of Weinstein.
And if we leave government out of it – the consequences of being wrong are someone loses a job that was not something they had a right to in the first place.
And if they don’t play back, ‘ya stop.
Did y’all know that one of the secrets to America’s innovative and creative spirit during the 19th and 20th centuries was that AmerI can children learned to PLAY in creative and innovative ways, then carried that into engineering, the arts, etc.???
Many Chinese don’t have a sense of humor. They follow the norms. They conform. They don’t make waves. They”ll produce crap on an assembly line and not speak up. And Americans had to go over to manage those obedient workers during the early stages of their new industrialization. Let’s not take the Grand Experiment of our Founding Fathers in the direction of being afraid to speak to people. F that.
One of the most serious problems with Ameirican young adults today is that they DO NOT have the oportunity for “free play” that their predecessors did.
It is incredibly important – for more than just innovation.
There are several prominent psychologists that are noting that the mess we have in our colleges at the moment is specifically the consequence of those students never having the opportunity for free play as kids.
They are used to a world where and authority is present and defines the rules and protects them.
They are not used to standing up for themselves.
BTW, though this manifests itself badly on campus today – the same problem has existed for much longer.
Much of the “regulation” we have today, is merely people who are unwilling to engage their neighbor directly, resolving their issues with them through government.
Because we can not ask our neighbor to mow their grass – we pass laws.
Many of us do not know and have never talked with the people we live next to.
But we are perfectly content to call the police or the municiplay authorities if something they do on their own property annoy’s us
We have lost or abandoned our capability of working together without some authority.
In doing so we have empowered the annoying busybodies who are good at getting others to make life unpleasant for their neighbors.
Jay,
No, Fox News doesn’t get a pass from me. They do their version of “gawking at the scenes of accidents” of life, like media whores, though I will admit that I am far more akin to “Fox News types,” men and women, than the liberal-progressive thought police at CNN, et al, who in their extreme or stereotypical form are FAR more PC, anal, and insulated from human life than most real people on planet Earth. Yes those squeamish “coastal elites” who talk about animal rights while they eat their chicken sandwiches on gluten-free rolls, haha, and looking down their noses at deplorable as if they too (the coastal elites and their PC minions) were not going to die and rot in the earth like everybody else! Oh, ridiculous human beings and their narrow perspectives! Oh these people with their abstract ideas–these people who have never been truly cold or hungry or too far from a refrigerator their entire insulated lives! Yes Bill Burr is correct–we need a plague.
The media is biased. Get over it.
Fox, CNN, what does it matter.
You can prefer whichever you please.
I would hope you are wise enough to grasp that each reflects a particular viewpoint.
But if you want to beleive Fax is biblically correct or CNN is the voice of truth, you are free to live in self deception.
I am more interested in assuring that all voices can be heard, and that we have more voices,
We are well past the 60’s when our view of the world wa delivered nightly by Cronkite, or Huntley Brinkley.
We are closer to the world of our founders where pampleteers hawked myriads of competing views.
Rick – Pigs and Princes, I heard one person state it this way: “It is the 99% of men that give the 1% a bad reputation”.
Dave- 2500 a night escorts- If a business owner who had been paying 2500 per night, wanted to save money and add extra bedroom duties to a manager that he found attractive with the condition of her losing her job if she declined, you might find his conduct reprehensible, but you would not be in favor of the government imposing any sanctions on his quid pro quo negotiating with his employee, correct? No force, no foul, right?
Pat: I am more in favor of Ron P’s position than yours, with the qualifier that I am speaking in general terms about workplace environment. There may be exceptions in the workplace environment, but generally speaking a place of work, and work time, is for just that. There is Tinder, clubs, and all sorts of other times and locations to pursue other activities.
Mike Hatcher
Hi Mike!
Well I’m taking the “loosen up people” and the “mind your own beeswax” approach on this one, to swing the pendulum the other way a bit. Of course there are plenty of inappropriate behaviors in the workplace, and it depends largely on the context, situation, and people involved.
My ire with this matter begins the other day, early in the morning hearing Matt Lauer’s name on my car radio, then I work a gal day and hear his name again at lunchtime, then so work 2nd hand me of the day and on,my ride home it is ” Omg Matt Lauer dud you hear?” and then in the news feeds on my laptop when I get home. This is surely a symptom of a voyeuristic gossip-addicted decaying culture. This is news? How are our bridges doing? Any new young engineers find new employment? Any small to mid-size companies buy some equipment (capital investments)? Any helpful medical research going on? Any news we can use?
Can someone please murder the guy who wrote the code for auto correct?
“Half day” not “gal day”
Jeese Louise!
Hey Pat! That work gal, I believe her name is Day. I think she may have reported you to H.R. Lol. Mike Hatcher
Mike
“Dave- 2500 a night escorts- If a business owner who had been paying 2500 per night, wanted to save money and add extra bedroom duties to a manager that he found attractive with the condition of her losing her job if she declined, you might find his conduct reprehensible, but you would not be in favor of the government imposing any sanctions on his quid pro quo negotiating with his employee, correct? No force, no foul, right?”
There is a difference between believing that conduct is reprehensible and has no place in business as an example, and making it illegal.
Regarding your example:
1). The employee has the right to decide what they will do with their own body. They do not however have a right to a job. So there are no rights involved here.
What is the business owner decided to save some money and demanded that an employee clean out the septic tank ? How is that different ? It is a disgusting job. You can decide you will not take money to do it, or that you will. Still your choice.
You remain free.
2). In your example you specifically framed this as a business owner. Those are actually quite rare. I beleive the US has just under 40M businesses – a large portion of those are corporations or partnerships. What I am looking at is it is extremely rare than a single individual has total control of a business and is NOT answerable to anything but the market.
A CEO is answerable to a board. Boards are answerable to shareholders.
I doubt the shareholders of Ford would find it acceptable that a CEO was using other employees as prositutes.
Unless you are the sole owner of the business – this would be theft – you are converting some part of the business to personal wealth – that would be stealing from the other owners or shareholders.
It also would be tax evasion. You pay prostitutes with your income. You pay employees with the business revenue – even if you have the consent of the owners, you are transfering business revenue to personal income without taxing it.
I have only addressed a small portion of the numbers of ways in which attempting to convert employees to prostitutes is more than reprehensible, but in reality actually going to trigger a rights conflict – because even though the employee may not have the right to a job, it is quite rare for the person doing the asking to have the actual right inside the bussiness to whatever services they want from other employees.
I have made that too complex. What I am trying to say is that nearly all of the time, when someone can direct another in business, they are also ANSWERABLE to another superior.
Finally in those rare instances in business where you are an actual sole proprieter, and you are not engaged in tax evasion, you are still answerable to the public.
I have been trying to make a related point in a series of other posts.
Everything that is illegal is (or should be) immoral.
BUT everything that is immoral should not be illegal.
At the farthest extremes – rape is both illegal and immoral.
Giving to charity – helping your neighbor is regarded as supremely moral, and many of us feel that failing to do so is not moral – but failing to engage in charity is not illegal.
If a condition of your job – is something you do not like – you are free to quit.
Judgement or the “morality” and consequences of that condition, is outside the government.
But it is not beyond the reach of humans to “regulate” through the market.
Pat . ” I flirt just about CONSTANTLY w most women at work, as my father taught me by example, and they flirt back, and it’s fun and gets non-PC humans through their work days and life with a sense of humor, and once in awhile a hot liaison to grease the gears between consenting adults!”
There might be a difference between your definition of flirting and mine. To me, there are two actions very closely related. Teasing ( poking fun and having a good amusing non romantic interaction) and flirting, the same interaction with a romantic interest. A number of definitions online of a flirt “is a person who habitually behaves in a way designed to be attracting, interesting and engaging to someone in whom they have a romantic interest. ”
So my comment above (#2) is based on that definition. I supervised 22 women directly and worked with hundreds more ( hospitals are about 85% female staffed) and the teasing was present daily. Flirting was not as I had no romantic interest in these friends and employees.
Ron
I likely have a different perspective on much of this because of my personal history.
Both sides of my family have owned small businesses 3 generations back.
Near my earliest memories are taking out the trash for my fathers architectural business.
My parents business was in the home – that is sort of a misnomer as by 2001, the “home” was 11,000 sq ft., 50 people worked there – at all hours, and my mother had finally at 70 gotten tired of not having any privacy and bought her own home 1/4 mile away – which my father was welcome in when he was not working.
My parents had employees from almost as early as I can remember.
The employees had jobs. Whatever they would not do – that is what my parents and the rest fo the family had to do. Take out the trash, clean the toilets.
In the world I grew up in – the owner of a business made the important choices, and could not get fired. But they also got all the shit jobs no one else would do, and if there was no money – not only didn’t they get paid, but we actually had to put PERSONAL money back into the business to pay employees and keep the doors open.
My parents had to entertain for business. As a consequence I and my siblings had to cook, and serve dinners for 10 people. I never worked as a waiter in school, but I know as well as the waiters in a fine restraunt all the etiquette of serving. And if we screwed up there would be hell to pay afterwards – my parents did not entertain because they liked it, they did so because the business required it.
Further, circumstances always arose that things needed to be done, and no employee would do them – If a storm knocked trees into the parking lot that needed to be cleared immediately – my siblings and I were out cutting and dragging.
When the septic lines got clogged and it needed fixed immediately – I was cleaning grease out of sewer pipes.
As a consequence I have never thought of some task as outside the scope of what one does.
You do whatever it takes.
As I developed more management responsibility, the employees I valued the most were those who did not say no to anything that needed to be done, or better still anticipated what needed done. One office manager that worked for me was incredible. She had half a dozen bookkeepers and secretaries working for her. But if there was a business meeting she made sure that coffee was provided to all the guests. No one had to ask her. Sometimes she got one of her subordinates to do it. but always it got done – even if she had to do it herself.
Today, I work primarily as a consultant. If you hire me and instead of writing Linux device drivers, you want me to clean toilets and are prepared to pay my rates – I will probably do it.
At the same time I have potential clients call all the time. I am constantly offered double, even tripple my normal rate – if I will work in Seattle, or San Francisco, or LA for 12 months.
I say no, and most of the time do not get the work.
That is the actual real world. As an employer you are free to ask for almost anything you want.
As an employee you are free to ask for almost anything you want.
And each can say no to the other.
I would not personally agree to sex as a condition of employment.
But if the toilets needed cleaned before an very important business meeting and that was the most important use of my time at that moment – I would scrub the toilets.
I also think that it would be very beneficial for all of us, for atleast some part of our lives, to become self employed. It will change your perspective on the world.
The first big change would be noting that there is no difference between self employed – and employed by someone else – except that those employed by others are deluded into beleiving they have some kind of guarantee or right to their job that they do not.
We all trade the value we produce for the money to buy the value we want in return.
Employee’s employer’s owner’s bosses, it is all the same.
Your boss trades the money they are alllowed to dispense for the value they hope you create.
You trade the value you create, for the money to buy elsewhere the things you want.
Both sides of the trade are the same. Every buyer is a sellor, every sellor is a buyer.
You can think of employment as buying money with labor, or buying labor with money.
Just as your employer can make demands you do not wish to meet, you can make demands they do not wish to meet. Both of you are equally free to walk away.
Dave Mike stated “If a business owner who had been paying 2500 per night, wanted to save money and add extra bedroom duties to a manager that he found attractive with the condition of her losing her job if she declined, you might find his conduct reprehensible, but you would not be in favor of the government imposing any sanctions on his quid pro quo negotiating with his employee, correct? No force, no foul, right”
You came back with “The employee has the right to decide what they will do with their own body. They do not however have a right to a job. So there are no rights involved here…….You can decide you will not take money to do it, or that you will. Still your choice.”
ARE YOU REALLY REALLY saying a business owner has a right to demand a female employee perform “additional bedroom duties” and the only recourse an employee has is quiting?
If so you take libertarianism to the extreme radical edge.
“ARE YOU REALLY REALLY saying a business owner has a right to demand a female employee perform “additional bedroom duties” and the only recourse an employee has is quiting?
If so you take libertarianism to the extreme radical edge.”
Everyone has plenty of recourse regarding things they do not like.
What I am saying is that no right is being violated, and no force is involved.
I am also saying there is no LOGICAL difference between being asked for sex, and being asked to clean out a septic tank as part of a job.
For many of us our job is covered by an employment contract.
Your employer is not free to breach it without consequence.
Additionally, demands by a boss that offend you – might well offend your bosses, superiors, shareholders and customers.
Ailes, OReily, Lauer – and even Weinstein who litterally owned a significant part of the company, have suffered very severe consequences.
I would note that any other position not only limits the employer – but also the employee.
Are YOU saying that next aspiring Angelina Jolie can not approach some Harvey Weinstein and say – I will give you a Blow Job if you give me the part ?
Finally I would note with respect to jobs – and I keep saying this and you all keep ignoring it.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A JOB.
Absent a contract, in much of the country and nearly all the world you can be fired from any job at any time for no reason at all.
This is one of the reasons that employers increasing will not provide references for employees.
They confirm employment that is it.
Why ? Because while you can terminate someone for no reason. We have very stupid laws that say you can not terminate someone for a variety of reasons.
If I employ you I can fire you because I got up on the wrong side of the bed.
But I can not fire you because you are gay, overweight, female, black, jewish, or old.
Because I can terminate you for no reason, but I can not terminate you for certain reasons, it is never a good idea to explain why someone is terminated.
If you have been in a position where you have had to hire and fire – you probably have been lectured about this – possibly by lawyers.
I have been sued because I terminated an employee and they claimed it was because of their age, religion, ….. It was because business was declining and someone had to go and he was the most expendable. It was not something I wanted to do.
We settled the suit – for $2500 – not because I did anything wrong, but because the Administrative Law Judge said openly – the employee is going to lose, but it will take another 2 days of hearings, and that would have cost more than $2500 in legal fees and other costs.
Regardless, the point still is that a job is not YOURS, you do not own it, you have no rights in it, beyond any contract you have.
You have no more claim on a job that you want than your neighbors house if you want to buy it from them. Your wanting a job, does not create a right in it. Absent a contract, your getting hired does nto create a right to the job.
Just as you are free to leave at anytime for any reason, so is your employer.
Further the entire process is reversable.
Just as you can go to your boss and say “I want a raise or I quit”, you could in theory go to your boss and say – “give me a Blow Job or I quit”.
Both demands are risks – but you are free to make them. Just as your employer is free to make demands on you – and you are free to say “no”
As to recorse – I think that those people Weinstein sexually harrased found recourse.
I think that those who did not want to give Lauer, Rose, Ailes, OReily, Keillor what they wanted ultimately found recourse.
Much of what you are calling “extreme libertarian” – is really just how things actually are.
OReilly did not go to jail for his conduct. He used his power in the workplace, and ultimately found that Murdock had MORE power.
This is little different from the NFL players kneeling during the anthem.
No legitimate law is being broken, no force is being used.
The players are free to kneel.
Their coaches and team owners (depending on contracts) are free to fire them.
Fans are free to support the players – or as in this case to OPPOSE the players.
Everyone has plenty of recourse.
The one nit I have added is that it is actually extremely rare for your boss to be the 100% owner of the business.
Unless the person making the demand, is also the complete owner of the business – then they are “stealing” from the actual owners. They are using their role as a boss to PERSONALLY benefit at the expense of the business.
These are the charges of misconduct against Matt Lauer.
The women making the charges are doing so anonymously, refusing to identify themselves for fear of ‘industry reprisals.’
“the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.
On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.
He would sometimes quiz female producers about who they’d slept with, offering to trade names. And he loved to engage in a crass quiz game with men and women in the office: “f—, marry, or kill,” in which he would identify the female co-hosts that he’d most like to sleep with.”
Huummm.
Inquiring minds want to know more.
The crass quiz game: who wanted to do what to who?
The sex toy, was it mechanical, inflatable, or electronic?
What stage of excitement was the exposed penis in?
Send followup info to me at PruientVoyeur.Com 😎🤩🤪
Just kidding. But with the exception of penis exposure, it doesn’t seem that extreme.
Wouldn’t counseling for that kind of offensive workplace behavior be more appropriate than termination for a long time employee?
http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/matt-lauer-accused-sexual-harassment-multiple-women-1202625959/
It seems like people don’t know how to set boundaries, are afraid to speak up, and are putting their employment ahead of their integrity and self respect.
Here, let me show the “victims” how it’s done:
“Mr. Lauer, here is your gift back.” (the sex toy) “I’m not interested, and I hope you show me the respect to back off and let me do my job. And if I were you I’d be careful about what you do in the workplace. Somebody else might not be as…discreet as I’m being. Now, is there anything you need me to do that’s work related?”
Then you stare the boss or co-worker in the eyes and let them know you’re a honey badger!
Or you could take the deice back to the store and exchange it for one of these and give it to Matt.
Jay
“Wouldn’t counseling for that kind of offensive workplace behavior be more appropriate than termination for a long time employee?”
If you run NBC – you can decide what is most appropriate.
I am serious. There is not a “right answer”
One of the reasons we want as much as possible outside the scope of govenrment – is because there is not one right answer to most issues.
NBC is dealing with myriads of facetts to this that we likely do not know all of.
You say the complaints were made anonymously.
My guess is NBC knows ALOT more than we do.
I would also guess NBC wants this out of the news as fast as possible.
They want to report the news – not be the news.
I would expect that stories about Lauer’s escapades could be very expensive.
Even a few weeks of low ratings could dwarf Lauers salary.
I do not care if NBC demands that Lauer strip naked and be tied to an andrews cross and be flogged by the women he harrassed – if that is what they think will resolve the problem.
Send him to counseling,
Send him to therapy.
Flog him.
Fire him.
These and myriads of other options are available.
NBC’s job is to figure out what possible solution will work best for NBC – not Lauer.
I do not know what that is, neither do you.
NBC really does not either.
And that is OK.
We do not need some manual of sexual misconduct in the workplace that dictates that
if the meatus is exposed to another employee – that requires firing, but otherwise, they should get counseling.
Seinfeld, aired on NBC, and some say there still are some folks there that “crossed the line”.
Great clip stuck!
Great clip, dduck.
Is there a way to disable my auto correct other than throwing my phone in a lake? I will Google it….
Ron,
I understand and appreciate the distinction you make between 1) teasing/poking fun and 2) romantic flirting. For the first-hand situation you mention (supervise 22 women at a hospital), a careful PC approach was maybe best FOR YOU in our current “hyper PC culture”.
Everyone,
That said, there are all kinds of people and all kinds of work environments: single people and married people, “open marriages” and strict monogamous marriages, the French who are famous for viewing the menage a’ trois and occasional extra-marital fling as healthy and normal, and work environs from construction sites to loading docks to public schools and church admin to whatever. And there is the current culture and lots of possibilities of what the culture SHOULD BE.
So, what about playful, sexual innuendo between friendly co-workers who are married to other people? For example:
Ray the visiting consultant and Sara the office employee have known each other for about 3 years.
Ray: “Hey Sarah, you are looking fine today as usual!”
Sarah: “Thank you, work husband.”
Ray: “What do you say we take a plane to the Caribbean for a week?”
Sarah: “Now you’re talking! Lemme go home quick and pack my clothes”
Ray: “You won’t need a lot of clothes!”
Sarah: “Haha. Hey Barb, Ray says he is taking me to the Carribean and I won’t need clothes!”
Barb: “Haha. Promises, promises! He said the same thing to me last week”
The adults should be able to decide how much is OK and where to draw the lines. If Ray works for UPS or Fed Ex, he could be jeopardizing his job. If Ray is self-employed, then some of the “rules” are different. If Sarah thinks Ray is crossing a line, she can throw some verbal cold water on him. If Sarah and Ray enjoy this banter, then it might go on for 30 years without harm. For those of you who think this kind of banter in the workplace is wrong, that’s YOUR opinion from YOUR perspective, for YOUR reasons!
Your definition of flirting compared to teasing or humorous banter is different than mine. I don’t consider this to be flirting given the situation of all three being on the same humorous page. I don’t see anything in this where three people have known each other for 3 years in a work environment and no outside activities have been asked for, demanded or exchanged.
This goes on daily at almost any company and the smart men know who they can communicate like this to and who they can’t. The ones getting in trouble are the ones that continue this behavior well after they know it is not looked upon kindly by those they are directing it toward.
Common sense has been replaced by social incompetence. And that I think is being driven by electronic social media where people are becoming less inclined to converse personally. Now women have always been the target of powerful men and that has not changed. What has changed is men and women do not know how to communicate and read nonverbal expressions and put them with the words. Then they complain because old fashioned teasing (or your flirting) becomes unacceptable sexual innuendo.
I am beginning to understand why there are so many gay men anymore. Its becoming a mine field if your looking for female companionship.
Pat;
Force is always NOT ok.
In the workplace your employer defines the rules.
And they have to respond to the wants of other employees and of clients.
I doubt NBC canned lauer because the NBC execs are prudes.
They most likely did so for one or all of several reasons:
They are potentially liable for his conduct
Keeping him would cost them in terms of ratings.
They are aware of more than we are, and there is worse then we know.
They could can him or lose lots of other employees.
Doesn’t matter which of these are true.
With respect to your remarks on preferences.
So long as force is not involved – I do not care.
We live in the internet era. My kids knew things about sex at 9 I did not know until I was 40.
If you are not hurting someone else (unless that someone wants to be hurt) – fine with me.
There is lots of things that repulse me, that turn other people on. And that is OK.
But if you involve someone else – their involvment must be consensual.
This is also AGAIN why government should stay out of all of this.
It is all complex, there is no way of sorting things out and making hard and fast rules – beyond that force is NOT OK.
Beyond that – “let you freak flag fly”
“For those of you who think this kind of banter in the workplace is wrong, that’s YOUR opinion from YOUR perspective, for YOUR reasons!”
Not True. The decision that matters in your workplace is that of the owners – and even they are answerable to clients.
Freedom does NOT mean the right to do whatever you want, wherever you want without any regard for anything.
It does mean – except where force is involved GOVERNMENT should not interfere.
But I can not go over to my neighbors yard and shit on it because I am into scatology.
Where you work is not Your workplace – you do not own it.
Your neighbors get to make the rules for what is acceptable in their homes – just as you do in yours. And your employer gets to make them for their business.
If you do not like your neighbors rules – do not visit them.
If you do not like your employers rules – get a different job.
I am not BTW advising that employers should actively intrude into the conduct of employees.
My ADVICE to employers would be – except where you have potential liability, or it would interfere with your business, it is wisest to stay out of your employees personal lives – even those parts that take place at work.
But that is ADVICE.
In the real world, my experience – even in workspaces where I made the rules is that things devolve to least common denominator.
This is a common problem and goes beyond flirtation at work.
If I have someone who has worked their ass off and they need a couple of days off – as an employer I would usually just do that.
But over the long run what tends to happen is that any flexibility you show one employee that has earned it, quickly becomes either a point of contention or a right or both for other employees.
The vast majority of the “office manual” that evolved at my place of business, did so driven by employee complaints about other employees.
Joe got more vacation that I did, or Bill leaves early on Thursdays or …..
No one wants to hear it when you say Joe put in 2 months of 60 hour weeks for which he did not get paid extra delivering on a big job, Or Bill also comes in early on Thursday’s to open the office.
The same is true with all kinds of other conduct. I have feilded all kinds of complaints from employees about other employees – you would think I was their parent.
You can tell me I should tell the “busy bodies” to go to hell – and often I want to.
But the purpose of a business is to produce things. And quite often my choices would be based on what gets what I need produced – not who do I like, or who do I think is wrong.
If a key employee who is responsible for delivering half the work of a division is ticked because someone less productive is flirting with the secretaries. The fact that I may not care – does nto mean I am going to do nothing.
Or worse still if a client tells me about what they see as misconduct by employees – again regardless of what I think, I an still likely to try to figure out how to address it.
Workplaces are not simple.
Try another example.
Fox seems to have alot of attractive intelligent women.
I strongly suspect that is a very deliberate choice.
These are not the Hanities and the OReily’s – the “big stars” but I strongly suspect that Fox knows their bottom line benefits from the viewer appeal of attractive intelligent women.
Those women have their jobs as “eye candy” as well as mind candy.
But they are “eye candy” for viewers – not toys for OReily and Ailes.
I am sure Murdock was not happy to push out Ailes and OReily.
At the same time, the women they were harrassing were not their toys.
They were there for their appeal to viewers.
Being unhappy to lose OReily does not mean Murdock would choose to lose a constant flow of smart attractive women. Nor does it mean he likes large sexual harrassment settlements and the possibility of viewers leaving over this.
You want to make the rules for everybody – run your own business – or do so in your own home.
While I do not think workplaces should be convents. I think even without government intervention, most are going to gravitate towards being prudish.
Because broad sexual freedom in the workplace has infinitely large downsides and very little upsides. Just like an employee in a fast food restaurants freedom to not wash after urinating, has no upside and huge downsides.
Employers tend towards conservatism – because everything controversial is a reason they could get in trouble – regardless of what their persona views are.
Ron P- Perhaps I should apologize,
This issue I believe is something I’m pretty sure is substantially the same discussion I’m sure I discussed with Dave before. So I am guilty of rehashing something to which I already knew his answer. Dave correctly points out I was deliberately walking a “tight rope” scenario, by making it a business owner rather than a CEO with responsibilities to others. I also deliberately avoided perhaps more likely scenarios like an employer blackmailing an employee that is in the country illegally, for example. What I try to “isolate” is essentially, is there any such thing as “financial coercion” and if financial coercion does exist, then should the government do anything to try to prevent it? Dave has, I believe, been very clear that he believes the government has no business in preventing any type of financial coercion, only market forces, social pressures, ect should curb such activities.
Mike Hatcher
Mike, yes Dave’s form of Libertarian is pure. Mine is tampered with both conservative and progressive policies. I know laws concerning how inappropriate sexual conduct would be hard to almost impossible to enforce for most business. However, there are ethics that elected officials should have to follow and under the current situations now facing congress, ethics is just another word tossed around by them just like *truth”. We overlooked Bill Clintons rape accusations and we will overlook these also. If its not you( if someone is female) your daughter or your wife, our concern is very limited.
Congress is different.
The equal protection clause essentially prevents government from discriminating.
Arguably you could legitimately criminalize sexual harrassment by a congressmen.
Further I argued that certain forms of sexual harrassment are actually theft .
That would also be true in government.
I would also note with respect to private discrimination and completely ignoring ideology.
Laws that say You can fire someone for no reason, but you can not fire them for a few specific reasons are inherently stupid and ultimately arbitrary and caprecious in their enforcement.
You do not want the law to encourage people to lie
The word coercion is usually defined as using force.
The actual use of force is absolutely something government can and should deal with.
Even the threat of the use of force is problematic.
What I think you mean by “financial coercion”, is not having the choices you wish you had for financial reasons.
How is that ever the business of government ?
There are lots and lots of things we should not do, that are and should be legal.
We have a right to free speach. Calling someone the N word is stupid, and wrong, and can result in bad things happening to you and few people having any sympathy.
But it is not illegal, and should not be.
If I take my car to a mechanic and they say they want $500 to fix it – is that financial coercion ?
I want the car, I need the car, but the mechanic wont give me what I want unless I give them what they want – even though I really do not want to give tham $500.
If Harvey Weinstein has a part in a movie, and some unknown actress wants that part and he says I want a blow job in return for the part – how is that different from my mechanic ?
My wanting something really bad that is not mine, does not make me entitled to have it.
If there are two guys after a job – and the one is clearly more qualified than the other, but the other will work for less – am I obligated to hire the more qualified one ? Or am I obligated to hire the cheaper one ?
The answer is I was never obligated to hire anyone. The more qualified person DOES NOT have a right to the job. The Cheaper person DOES NOT have a right to the job.
What I think you are calling financial coercion is just not having the choices I want.
When I was addressing the difference from the rare case of the actual sole proprietor of a business making a demand, and pretty much anyone else in authority,
I was not fixating on “the law”. I was addressing the underlying moral principles that we hope determine “the law”.
Unless you have 100% ownership of the business, if you say to an employee or prospective employee If you want to get/keep this job, you will do X that benefits me personally, then you are stealing from anyone who owns a part of that business.
As we are discussing ideology and morality and principles and philosophy – what the law should be, not what the law is, I am not arguing “but we have laws covering that”.
We have and should have laws against theft.
If you gain a personal benefit from a position within a business – such as trading sex for a job, then you are stealing from the owners of that business – unless that business is completely yours.
I keep trying to make this clear to most people. We do not need lots of new laws.
Most of the things we make illegal each year – are already illegal.
Trying to kill someone is illegal and has been atleast since Hamurabi.
Trying to kill someone because they are gay or black does not need a separate “hate crime law”.
Trying to kill people is already illegal. Hate is just a common motive.
In fact hate crime laws violate an important principle – that otherwise is also part of our law.
That is that the status of a crime victim does not matter.
The DA is not allowed to go to court and say – Joe Doe tried to kill a rich person and therefore is MORE guilty, The defense attorney can not argue Joe Doe killed a bad person and therefore should get a pass.
If a person is terminally ill and you murder them (I am not talking about assisted suicide), a month before they would have died anyway – it is still murder.
Anyway, the point is that we really only need a relatvely small number of laws for a small number of crimes, and that covers everything.
We do not need a law that says you can not demand a blow job in return for a job, because that is already a crime – theft, except in the narrow case you own 100% of the business, or you have the owners explicit consent to trade jobs for personal favors.
Beyond that, all conduct I do not like – is not criminal. Not giving me the choices I wish I had – might be mean, but it is not criminal.
But that does not mean there can be no consequnce for bad conduct that is not criminal.
AS we are seeing right now – many of the allegations of sexual misconduct being made are not crimes, even those that are – most are not prosecutable.
That does not mean there are no consequences – as Bill OREilly, Roger Ailes, and Matt Lauer have discovered.
Finally where force is not involved – it is best to leave government out of it.
That does not mean letting people get away with bad acts that are not crimes.
It just means sorting things out without government and without force.
It means boycotts, or firing, or other consequences that do not involve the use of force.
https://twitter.com/LibertyHangout/status/936720300477177861
I keep getting told economists oppose this.
‘Flynn is only valuable if he can provide self-proving information or leads’
Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor of law at Harvard University
A bought witness who has pleaded guilty to lying will not have much credibility. He is only valuable if he can provide self-proving information or leads. What I don’t understand is why Flynn would lie about urging the Russians to veto or delay the Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. That lame-duck resolution wrongly tied the hands of the incoming president and the request was entirely proper. Perhaps Flynn mistakenly thought the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in relation to a dispute with the United States, was still good law—which it isn’t.
Here are the opinions of two credible legal experts about the implications of Flynn’s plea.
Further education on plea significience:
https://lawfareblog.com/flynn-plea-quick-and-dirty-analysis
After reading the first paragraph any doubts you had that the rest of this lacked crediblty should have been gone.
If Flynn had the evidence of the lawfare allegations, they would have been part of the plea deal – atleast as part of the information, if not the charges.
It would be in BOTH Flynn and Mueller’s interests to do so.
Flynn is protected from further charges for anything that is part of the plea deal.
Mueller gains two things – leverage with respect to Flynn who can not risk losing a deal which includes allocution to numerous other crimes, and Mueller establishes the conspiracy he needs to go after the next player.
The Flynn deal was most likely tame, because it was the most Mueller could get.
Flynn faced a long expensive court battle that had risk for him and his son, but one that he could likely win if he could last – Flynn’s “misrepresentations” to the FBI are not sufficient to sustain a criminal prosecution. Flynn got himself out of Mueller’s sights quite cheaply.
I would strongly suggest reading Dershowitz – though I think Derschowitz misses a key point – because Derschowitz is more familiar with defending people who are quilty,
Flynn has excellent reason to beleive he will ultimately be pardoned.
Just as Scooter Libby and Casper Weinberger, and Deutch and …..
It is unlikely that Flynn is going to cooperate with Mueller in a way that would jephardize a near certain future pardon.
Regardless, Derschowitz does make on critical observation. Absolutely anything Flynn provides to Mueller must be “self proving”.
Flynn has just plead to “crim-in-falsi” – a crime of falsification – lying.
He has almost no credibility as a witness. The jury will actually be instructed if he testifies to weight the fact that he has plead to lying.
Put differently this is not going to be a he say – he says. Flynn must do more than “cooperate” to damage Trump, He must supply actual evidence that does not require his own testimony.
The left has presumed from the beggining of this that such evidence exists.
more than a years since this started – that remains nothing but wishful thinking.
Maybe Flynn has a document stash, maybe Flynn can provide information to Mueller that Mueller could not get otherwise but will result in proof of something we as of yet have no evidence of and have very good reason to beleive could not have happened.
The only issue of consequence is that if such evidence actually existed – Flynn would be one of the people who might know.
Regardless, we are still looking to an actual crime. The left is hoping for both the crime and the evidence to appear magically.
An expert is not credible merely by virtue of your saying so.
In fact someone is not expert merely by virtue of assertion.
Thus far Derschowitz, McCarthy, and Turley have proven the most credible.
I beleive that McCarthy has noted – and certainly many others have noted,
No matter how many scalps Mueller collects, he will have failed if he makes no progress on Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
We have nothing in that regard today, that we did not have in the summer of 2016.
McCarthy interestingly also observed that it clearly appears that Flynn was “setup” by the Obama administration.
Flynn’s “misconduct” was long before Mueller was appointed.
There is actually no rational reason for the Obama FBI to have been asking of Flynn the questions he answered inaccurately.
Further that because the FBI was monitoring Kislyak’s communications, when they talked with Flynn in late 2016 they already knew the answers to the questions they were asking.
In otherwords the objective of questioning Flynn was not to investigate, but to entrap.
McCarthy does an excellent job of noting that While Flynn may now be a “cooperating witness”.
The “plea bargains” Mueller has constructed with both Flynn and Papadoilis are the opposite of those a Prosecutor trying to roll up a conspiracy typically does.
Normally the prosecuter overcharges rather than undercharges in the plea bargain, for two reasons:
Because the plea is itself part of the evidence of the conspiracy, by incorporating the conspiracy into the plea the prosecutor creates the presumption and the evidence the conspiracy exists.
And because contra the claims of too many experts pontificating on this, undercharging substantially WEAKENS your leverage against your cooperating witness.
Flynn has plead guilty to something that was already know true in late 2016 – that he misrepresented his communications with Kislyak – both to the FBI and to Pence.
What he has plead guilty to is something that a jury could very easily have acquitted him for.
Further whether shortly or at a later time, it is something near certain he will be pardoned for.
Historically that is what presidents have done when subordinates were charged or convicted of mis-stating legal actions. Both Bushes did this, and Clinton pardoned significantly more egregious crimes by staff.
It is likely that Kushner is currently in Mueller’s sights.
But most likely for his involvement in the actions that are central to Flynn’s plea.
What gets missed repeatedly here is that it is NOT what Flynn did that was wrong.
It is inaccurately answering questions to the FBI regarding it.
Kushner’s exposure – if any, would be that he might not have accurately represented those actions – either in testimony or in statements to the FBI.
I would further note that Mueller has used an incredibly expansive definition of false statement, that almost certainly would not survive an appeal.
As a rule a prosecutable false statement, must:
Have been knowingly wrong at the time it was made
Have been relevant to the investigation – and relevant does not merely mean of interest.
Have resulted in misdirecting the investigation or tribunal.
Have not been corrected before there was harm.
Neither Papadoluis’s nor Flynn’s purportedly false statements meet Most of those criteria.
Conversely numerous statements, testimony, etc. of Clinton and her aides absolutely meet all those criteria.
There is are enormous presumptions on the part of the “credible experts” that think this is significant.
One is that Flynn got a sweet heart deal in return for providing damning information about the Trump campaign.
It is more plausible that Flynn got a sweet heart deal because this was the most Mueller could get Flynn on and Flynn wants himself and his son out of Mueller’s sights – winning a legal battle against Mueller could have cost Flynn millions. Flynn has substantially reduced his exposure.
It will actually be extremely hard for Mueller to rescind these deals and attempt to prosecute other claims. That itself could actually constitute prosecutorial misconduct.
Anyway, it is almost certain that Mueller’s next step is to target Kushner regarding his directions to Flynn. Kushner’s exposure is ONLY his past testimony and statements to the FBI.
I would also note that Kushner is far better situated for a knock down drag out with Mueller over “false statements” than Flynn was. Further Mueller is not able to leverage other family members against Kushner as he was with Flynn. In fact the opposite is true.
It is in the Trump families best interests to stop Mueller at the gates.
Finally, we are almost 9 month’s into Mueller’s investigation, with absolutely NOTHING touching Trump/Russia and the election.
Here is Andrew McCarthy on the Flynn Plea.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation
Real fiscal reform.
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/12/01/fiscal_reform_lessons_from_the_anglosphere_110436.html
Ron,
I think you have a good and reasonable “take” or handle on banter, teasing, flirting, etc. in the workplace, and I enjoyed our brief back and forth here. It is interesting that your definition of “flirting” seems to require actual romantic activity or real intent of romantic activity, while my definition of flirting includes playful temptation, innuendo, romantic and sexual “probing” or “testing of the water” without actual intent. I know there are a lot of wives out there who consider their husband just being nice to and smiling at an attractive other person as “flirting,” but now we are into language and the variety and the curious subjectiveness of definitions.
Dave,
The concept of coercion/force is very foundational to your thinking. You must agree with that!
I don’t disagree with everything you have put forth in this thread or other threads. That is gentlemanly of me to preface in this way!
Your statements show an attempt at a framework of truth or certainty that “exists” and cannot be denied, as if a distinction about a “right” could be a steel girder, a massive I-beam that will support all the weight of your arguments resting on it. (A theory regarding these framework statements might be that the analytical mind producing these statements is so active, energized, and relentless, I’m being complimentary there, that it desires a non-breakable support upon which it can finally rest…but that is just a theory, a musing).
I believe in Truth and truths, and enjoy digging down to the foundation of a thing. I am not one of those relativists who say “it is all relative and subjective and there is no Truth, only relative and temporary truths…”
But I do know that what a bunch of people have in their heads often supersedes truth in a very practical way, ad what a bunch of people have in their heads can get me killed or arrested, and the kind of “rights” and truths that your statements typically tunnel toward are often not going to save my life except in a court of law, and sometimes not there either!
An illustration to help clarify what I am tunneling toward here: If I slap a cow in the face in a crowded street in India I believe my action will yield a different reaction than if I slap a cow at a rodeo in Tennessee. It is what the people believe about the cow that matters, not some abstract truth or attempt at certainty. I wish to apply this to the topic of sexual “misconduct,” as that is Rick’s current civilization topic here.
My cow illustration is random and not perfect, I admit. I have to get ready for work and out the door. We could take the “rights” and “abstract distinctions” that your statements often drive to, and travel with them to North Korea for example, and how much will they protect us?
Isn’t what we need as a society, in real time, a practical, reasonable working explanation of allowable conduct, that Jill Q. Public and John Doe can understand, as a protection against mass media-fed hysteria?
Freaking Brilliant Pat. You get the FB medal for today. Win it 5 days in a row and you get a trophy, Rick will mail it to you.
The even shorter response to you, would be
The possibility of alternatives to my values and beleifs does not make any alternative plausible or equal.
I have offered my principles and subjected them to everyone here’s criticism and they have not been found wanting.
You have not. I have addressed that “common sense” and “common decency” are neither common nor even commonly understood. They are not principles. At best they are your personal perception of what you hope are shared gut feelings.
They are not a valid basis for making choices about the use of force against others.
Addressing those of the left more generally, centuries of experience show whatever the foundation, the solutions of the left do not work.
Excluding what has failed is normally called learning.
Though the left seems to think excluding what it does not like is learning.
So much to your post.
I am libertarian. That appears to be more than an ideology. It is a personality type.
There are several things that means. One is that libertains are strong “systemitizers”.
They are the people who try to put everything into some kind of framework.
I would note that science is the process of organizing knowledge into a framework.
I rarely use “coercion” – because “force or the threat of force” is a narrower defintion fo coercion than most people use.
Regardless, force is NOT foundational to my thinking.
It is foundational to Government. if we are dealing with force we are dealing with govenrment, and if we are dealing with government we are dealing with force.
That is not merely my “view” that is pretty much foundational to ALL conceptions of government.
Even fascists, socialists, authoritarians, those on the left and those on the right would agree,
or should if they logically thought about it.
The distinction between the left, right, and libertarains is not that government is force.
It is what government uses of force are justified.
My “libertarian” construction underlies EVERY ideology I am aware of. Again the distinction is that the left and the right are prepared to justify the use of force much more frequently than libertarains.
Moving on. The science of knowledge is epistemology.
Skipping what is conceivable, and past what is possible, limiting ourselves to what is consistent with the universe that humans inhabit, there are many things that are actually known.
The following are specific to that universe that humans exist in.
Of all possible premises we can know for certain that nearly all of them are provably FALSE.
Finding things that are false is extremely easy. Finding truth is harder.
Further the absence of absolute truth does not preclude relative truth.
We can actually know the relative probability of the truth of most things that we beleive to be true.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
In the human inhabited universe – the real world, that statement is absolute truth.
Another similar statement
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes
is similarly true.
You will find from the above that it is possible to conclude many things:
The classical liberalism that I offer does not contradict the real world.
All other known ideologies at one point or another contradict the real world.
I have not stated that my perspective is the truth, only that it is possible, and has not been found to conflict or contradict reality.
I would also note – for Roby, that everything above is in the domain of the science of knowledge – epistemology.
As I structure things philosophy is subordinate to the science of knowledge, but sometimes it is expressed as the philosophy of knowledge which I think is wrong.
Philosophy is downstream from that – and unfortunately for Roby the remainder of science is SUBORDINATE to philosophy.
Most of science is not merely constrained by observable reality, but also meta rules that are essentially philosophy of science that result in the axioms of science – things we accept as true that we can not prove.
So whether those like Roby like it or not science rests on a small number of things we can not prove, as well as systems of logic and mathematics,
You can not have molecular biology without assuming an enormous number of things that many like Roby wish to elide.
There are some divisions that occur – because gravity as an example does not depend on human behavior – while sociology, politics and economics do.
But I would note that even in science at its deepest levels everything is probabilistic.
Given everything that is knowable about a subatomic particle, we can not know exactly what that specific particle will do. But we can know with an extremely high probability what nearly all particles will do.
Economics as an example is much the same.
If I raise the price of something – I can not know what every persons response will be, But I can know with a high degree of certainty what the overall response will be.
You addressed “rights” as something distinct. Sometimes I talk about rights – but mostly I do not.
Rights is another word that means too many different things to different people.
Natural rights are what our founders tended to talk about.
Many talk about “constitutional rights” – I like the constitution, but it is not biblical truth further we have mangled it so badly over 250 years that it no longer means what it says, and that is not likely fixable without a revolution.
But I can talk about liberty. And now we are starting to talk about that “philosophy” that Roby wants to ignore.
If you accept that humans have free will, and you reject hard determinism, the alternate to these are philosophies that few of us would find tolerable, like it or not you are stuck with an awful lot of what I argue.
Without getting into a great deal of detail, what I am saying is you can reject alot of what I argue.
But what we accept and reject has consequences.
If you accept that contradictions do not exist (in the real world),
If you accept that most premises can be proven false even if nothing can be prove absolutely true.
If you accept that we withing reason establish the relative probability of something being true.
If you accept that free will exists,
If you accept that everything is not determinant.
You have precluded as false an enormous amount.
In fact with only about half of those premises you can preclude every ideology except libertarianism.
Without free will as an example – there is no morality.
Conversely if you accept that humans have free will, you not only accept morality, but you have a foundation for it. Acts are immoral when they interfere with the free will of others.
You also quite quickly end up with the lockean social contract – essentially that government exists to protect all liberty except the liberty to infringe on the liberty of others.
Returning to your hypothetical.
Absolutely people “believe” things that are false. They do so in india. Even scientists often believe things that are false or subsequently prove to be false.
I am not denying that false beleifs exist, are held widely, and may have dire consequences.
Nor even that to some extent we might find ourselves having to conform our behavior to them.
The fact that we must live in a world where many people hold views that are demonstrably false does not mean we should throw up our hands and punish cow slapping criminally in the US.
Nor does it mean we should repeat mistakes we have made in the past.
You do not have to accept my libertarianism. Simply rooting from the world what we know – and in many cases have known for nearly a century to be false, would dramatically improve the world, standards of living and politics – though the major political parties throughout the world would not survive.
I would note that in all of the above I have only barely mentioned “rights”.
I would also note that libertarianism does not answer all the questions in the world.
It is about how we govern ourselves. It leaves the vast majority of that part of our lives divorced from government and the use of force, up to each individual.
If you wish to beleive that cows are sacred and cow slapping is a sin – even though it may be arguable that is a demonstrably false beleif – still go ahead.
But you may not use force to impose that belief on others.
Many of us have been discussing workplace conduct in the context of sex.
Absent force, we need not agree. I am very uncomfortable with much of what you describe as your conduct, and I would not be surprised if others in your workplace perceive you quite differently from how you think of yourself and how you think they think of you.
Whether I am right or wrong about that can work itself out.
Further those things do not have to work themselves out the same way in the same places.
While I think there is a kind of gravity that is going to work towards desxualising the work place to a large extent. That does not preclude some workplaces self selecting towards conduct that is considered acceptable that is what you think is OK, while others self selecting to puritanism.
This is also why liberty is so important.
My guess is that you would not likely get hired in a workplace where the conduct you engage in was viewed dimly, and that even if you were – you would quickly choose not to work their.
Firing people is actually the extreme and rare means by which these types of selection occur.
I observed decades ago that the worst employees somehow seem to gravitate towards the worst employers.
When we choose where we work, and when employers choose who they hire, we self select for myriads of factors – beyond the nonsensical “best person for the job”.
Most of us try hard – both to work at places where the culture fits our values, and to hire people whose values fit our culture.
We fire people only when the self selection process has failed.
“Isn’t what we need as a society, in real time, a practical, reasonable working explanation of allowable conduct, that Jill Q. Public and John Doe can understand, as a protection against mass media-fed hysteria?”
To directly answer this in a 100 words, rather than what might be several thousand.
NO!.
We have a few rules of conduct rooted in when the use of force is justifiable.
Those “laws” are as rigid and bright line and simple and clear as we can make them and the consequences of violating them could include loss of liberty.
In all else acceptable conduct works itself out on its own.
What is acceptable at Ecstasy strip club, and the mormon tabernacle are likely to be extremely different.
What is acceptable at Giant and what is acceptable at Target can still be different.
As employers – we try to find the people who will fit together and produce.
As employees – we try to find the employer where we best fit and are productive.
That process will not consistently work perfectly.
Additionally society as a whole – often through the vehicle of consumers choices, we get a voice.
If NBC chooses an approach that its viewers are offended by – it is likely NBC will have to change.
No we do not need absolutes everywhere for everything.
If an attractive women were to grab my son’s ass at work, he would likely be very pleased and friends and family would likely all congratulate him. If an attractive man were to grab my daughter’s ass at work, she would be in a crisis state and friends and family would be trying to help her figure out WTF to do. The careless portion of the male brain thinks, “I’d enjoy having my ass grabbed, so will she if she isn’t uptight.” (The careless part of Bill Cosby’s brain thinks “I’d like being drugged and sexually used, so should she”, see the section on alpha males below)
You all know this is true.
Going back deep into the past before the thin veneer of civilization and modesty and clothing, indiscriminate sex for a male means pleasure, victory and at a deeper level, spreading his genes. Indiscriminate sex for a female means getting pregnant and not being choosy about which genes she is now obligated to raise. And noone was thinking about living a long life and retiring to Arizona, young suddenly sexually mature humans were living in the moment. As far as I know.
In nature there are alpha males and even alpha females among primates. And, in humans too, but this concept is not recognized by law, except in (Saudi Arabia etc.). This leads to trouble with the thin veneer of civilization.
The erasure of the very ground that the Prairie Home Companion used to stand on is a marker of an extreme, PC gone truly utterly bonkers. I think most people will recognize this and push back.
Just think, if the human race survives, our time will be ancient history in the future and they may figure this all out and have a good laugh at us. Like the people in Woody Allen’s Sleeper and the Orgasmatron. (Ooops I forgot, Woody Allen, not a nice man, married his step daugher told everyone to just lay off of his hollywood buddy Polanski, damn those alpha males.)
I’m also going to use the word ‘brilliant’ to describe your comments above, Roby.
But I fear the pushback is going to be a long ways down the road. The pendulum of absurdity is still picking up momentum.
Well, if you are going to flatter me there is always the possibility that we can get together as THREE open minded couples with You and Pat and I and our wives.
I am sure we can out do the libertarians, who merely accept this kind of thing in principle.
I am not going to address what areas my principles with respect to sexual freedom turn into action, beyond that group sex is not my personal kink. and I will put my principles into practice – or not as I choose while allowing you something you do not allow others – the freedom to act without the intervention of government.
Humans far more than any other creature are capable of changing their world and they world.
Ancient natural requirements remain to some extent encoded in our DNA, while at the same time the conditions for success are radically different than many millenia ago.
Life expectance is greater than 2 decades, the need to procreate like bunnies, because most children did not survive is passed.
The Alpha Male – in terms of that one most likely to thrive in the world we have created is quite different from that 100,000 years ago, or even 100.
We preserve the instincts and preferences encoded in our DNA, in part because while we have remade nature for our own benefit – entropy is still a law of nature and should our modern fabric tear or burn to ash, or nature throw a handgrenade at us, we may – briefly need the alpha traits of the past.
Pat and Mike back and being scathingly witty, Youza! Splendid!
Roby! Wow, the Welcome Back theme song (very nice, enjoyed that) in close proximity to my words being called “Brilliant”! Are you flirting with me, because it’s working and I’m ready to have sex with you now, lol!
Excellent of you to bring up the double standard of male grab-ass vs. female grab-ass in such a down-home, relatable, cuts-to-the-chase fashion. Also on target with the “thin veneer of civilation”–Holy Cow ( ! ) this has been a hot topic of mine thus year from my makeshift pulpits and soap boxes! I bet Syrians wish every minute of every day they could have their thin veneer back instead if the hellish nightmare they’re in.
More later…
“because it’s working and I’m ready to have sex with you now, lol!”
I assume what you mean by this euphemism is a proposal to get together as two open minded 21st century couples with our wives. Is your wife a sport, nudge nudge wink wink?
Have an photos?
(take that Libertarians).
How is consenting adults engaging freely in actions of their own choice that do not harm others a slap in the face of libertarians ?
How is it not confirmation of libertarian principles ?
Roby, I am at a complete loss to understand how your mind works.
This is just another example where you think that something that makes my point refutes it.
Earth to Dave. The entire exchange was an example of humor. I wonder what kind of entry humor has in your libertarian encyclopedia? Oh, I am sure you are all for it in principle…
“Earth to Dave. The entire exchange was an example of humor. I wonder what kind of entry humor has in your libertarian encyclopedia? Oh, I am sure you are all for it in principle”
So ?
I’m late to the game as usual, but most of you seem to agree that rampant PC has jumped the shark. I’m not talking about the many cases of serious sexual abuse, of course. But the hysteria over any form of improper touching is going to rob the already fraught relationship between men and women of any remnants of spontaneity and charm.
By the way, I’ve noticed that all the comments so far are from men. Where’s Priscilla?
Rick;
I do not agree that we have “jumped the shark”, and in fact hope this continues for some time.
I think we have ALOT of purging to do, before we can try to reach anew and actual “moderate” position.
When we get through purging, I think that the “answer” is going to be short of force, each workplace works out its own concept of acceptable conduct.
I expect that will result in a heavy bias towards tame – because contra the left businesses are incredibly risk averse – particularly risks that have little upside and large downsides.
I grasp that sex and romance are intrinsic to human nature and trying to exterminate them from the workplace is nearly impossible. Nor am I suggesting that we “should” try – only that the incentives for business lead in that direction.
I do not think there is a “right” way that men should treat women – or visa versa.
But the use or threat of force is wrong, and beyond that what any individual finds unacceptable for them – is unacceptable for them so long as the force of govenrment is not the means of implimenting personal preferences.
I think it is very important to note that criminal standards are completely different from standards elsewhere.
I can “believe” a woman’s claims of misconduct in most sphere’s without necessarily being able to convict the alleged perpetrator of a crime.
I am not nearly as comfortable as most of the men here with the presumption that Women are near universally receptive of the interactions that so many men here seem to think they are.
I know that the women in my life complain about being pinched and grabbed by people who do not have the relationship that would make that acceptable to them.
Yes, I would like to here from alot more women on this.
I’m right here, Rick! I figured that I would wait until some other women had weighed in on the topic, since generally there are a couple who post at the very beginning, after a new column and then leave me to be the sole, but highly regarded, representative of my gender 😉
Certain of the men caught up in this hysteria have had well-known and years-long reputations for their abusive and unwanted sexual abuse of women ~ I’m thinking here of Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer (Maybe you guys don’t read the National Enquirer or Star, but I find them an amusing way to while away my time in the grocery store lines…and Lauer has been, for years, the subject of many exposés on his randy behavior) and John Conyers (according to Cokie Roberts, virtually all female Capitol Hill reporters knew to never get into an elevator alone with him.
Many of the others are problematic for a few reasons: the lack of any real evidence of assault or harrassment, the length of time that has passed since the alleged acts occurred, along with the changing cultural definitions of what constitutes acceptable behavior in the workplace and, indeed, generally. I used Al Franken as an example….I can’t stand Franken, I find him a self-important, sententious, supremely unfunny (yes, even back in his SNL days ~ I challenge you to find a video of a sketch in which he was actually funny) nasty troll of a man. However, I did say, back before he had more than a half-dozen accusers, that, other than the creepy picture of him groping ~ or pretending to grope ~ a sleeping woman’s breasts, that there was nothing but “he said/she said” evidence of his boorish behavior. And even the creepy picture fit in with his unfunny style of “humor,” and even that happened before he was a senator.
Now, if he’s been grabbing asses while posing with women since he was elected ~ and, he has not really denied that ~ I find that pretty repulsive… but I guess I thought he was pretty repulsive anyway. I guess my point is that I don’t think it’s worth driving him from office over, particularly since there are guys like Conyers who have been harassing his staffers, dropping his drawers, and using his taxpayer funded office budget to pay off his accusers.
In addition to this, I think that women need to take some responsibility in many of these cases. The whole #metoo thing strikes me as an imposition of victimhood on many women who are perfectly capable of handling certain of these situations themselves. For example, I once worked with a guy who would frequently comment on my appearance in a positive, but overly flirtatious way: stuff like “Great dress, really shows off your nice legs.” After the first 3-4 times he did this, I said ” Cut it out Joe, you’re making me uncomfortable.” We worked for a big company that was already having mandated sexual harassment workshops, so I assumed that he would know that he was on thin ice. And, sure enough, I never got another “compliment” from him again. In fact, he barely spoke to me after that.
Should I have reported him to HR? I could have, he might have gotten off with a warning, r maybe, if there were other women whom he had been treating in the same way, and who reported his behavior, he might have been fired. But, I think that we have lost perspective on what types of behavior are “small potatoes,” best able to be handled on a personal level, and what types of behavior are more serious. Not to mention, that I think that the idea that women who claim that they have been harrassed, assaulted, or otherwise mistreated by men should “always be believed,” is not only stupid, but potentially dangerous.
So, those are some of my thoughts… I have others, but I’ll see what others may think of these.
By the way ~ Hi Pat! Hi Mike! Bout time…..
Just to clarify, I think that all allegations of harassment and assault need to be taken seriously. But, such allegations need to be investigated and both the accuser and the accused should be given a chance to be heard and believed.
Priscilla, I agree with you 100%. This is a tough issue when there is one accuser, but it gets easier to develop a case for employee discipline when multiple accusers come forth. The House and Senate is a different animal. Based on one report I heard, there is little the house leadership can do. The senate has some ethics rules and they can refuse to sit a member. Not sure what it takes to expel a senator.
But this provides the parties a chance to come together and develop rules, either through legislation or some other method at the federal or state level (recommendation) where all complaints would be reviewed by an independent commission. Then some form of punishment based on predefined levels according to the severity of the behavior would result in censure to expulsion. If it were at the state level, there would be actions recommended by the legislation the states could adopt. (NEVER HAPPEN as the parties would never agree on anything)
But it would set a good precedence if they worked that out.
Ron
NOOOO!
If there is force involved – it is ALREADY a crime, and it should be prosecuted.
We need nothing new there – aside from maybe more willingness of women to come forward, which this might help.
Otherwise, PLEASE!!!!!! Leave government out of it. Absolutely no good can come of it no matter what.
That does not mean we do nothing – we ARE doing something, this is being reported, people are getting canned, we are thinking more about it. Businesses are reassessing their policies.
Priscilla’s response to the event she dealt with a good example – and I think had a good outcome.
Priscilla talked about going to HR – and I do not want to stifle that.
But in general where force is not involved, I think we should all look to solve ALL our problems with each other – not thought intermediaries, unless that does not work.
I would also note in line with Pat’s remark’s that Priscilla responded that the remarks were not welcome and they stopped. I would also have been fine for her to respond favorably to them.
Though I would disagree with Pat overall and suggest that most workplaces are going to move further towards puritanism. There is little upside for business to a sexually open workplace.
But that is an expectation of mine – not a dictate.
If a business wants to permit open expression of all these things, and the employees and clients respond favorably – fine by me.
It is important to grasp that a job is not a right for many reasons.
One of which is that rights are entitled to very high degrees of protection – and we do not actually want that with jobs.
We do not want the entire workspace to become homogenous in any particular way.
It is perfectly fine for different workplaces to be different, and for employees who are uncomfortable in one to seek another and for employers who do not see staff as compatible with their workplace culture to help them go elsewhere.
Most of us are not going to find a perfect fit. But we are entitled to weigh our personal values and our need for the job against the demands of the job and the cultural that comes with it.
If I was insecure about my future, or being compensated in a way I could not get elsewhere I might choose to tolerate a work environment that was a poor fit, and conform myself to its demands.
Conversely if I was a poor fit and felt I could easily do better elsewhere – I would.
Having lots of different choices is GOOD, not bad.
Government destroys choices. That is literally its job, that is a part of why we only want government where we must have government.
We have to get past this nonsense that the only solution to any problem is government.
There is an interesting tweet running arround now.
It goes something Like NBC did NOT fire Matt Lauer – WE DID! Free markets work.
Accept that you are not getting a perfect result – there is no such thing.
Once you understand that the net extent of the failure will ALWAYS be lower when the market resolves the issue, that when govenrment does – UNLESS there is force involved.
Dave, well once again I guess I did not say what I meant to say. I know there are laws already. I know business is taking care of their issues. I know that people can go to HR.
So people go to HR. HR investigates. Someone may or may not get fired based on findings. And, based on the issues, if a complaint is filed with the police, someone may go to trial.
Now compare that to government. Who does a woman complain to concerning a representative? A senator? How do they investigate? What are the ramifications if something is found?
My comment was based on the above questions. Clarify how something is investigated and clarify what happens based on the findings. If that requires legislation to make sanctions legal that the house or senate takes, then that was my point. And if it has to be at the state level on how their rep. or sen. is handled, then make that a legal document that states could adopt if they so choose.
What needs to change is a senator elected for 6 years accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women and absolutely nothing happens for another 6years when they run for reelection. There has to be quick and lasting consequences to men like Conyers and Frankin, not just, “well they did something unacceptable and the voters will decide in the future what will happen” That is not justice for the accuser and is not quick.
Sorry, I am not that much Libertarian to make it OK for the powerful to impose themselves unwillingly on others and then face no consequences until years later.
I think that we all understand that whatever should happen regarding those in government things are different. That is an artifact of the nature of government – not markets.
What do you suggest ?
With respect to your original hypothetcal.
IF there is force involved – this STARTS with the woman going to government.
If not, government is not a part at all.
If not there is NOT any specific prescribed what it is handled.
The woman could go to HR first – or as Priscilla did she could confront the person whose conduct bothered her.
There is no canned libertarian solution to how to deal with miscreants in government.
The libertarian answer to government is to shrink it as much as possible, and to reduce its power as much as possible,
and to be permanently vigilant.
Regardless, no matter what its scale distaste for how government works has nothing at all to do with libertarianism.
If you want you can go full blown anarcho-capitalist and eliminate government entirely turning its functions over to competing voluntary businesses.
I actually find some appeal to anarcho-capitalism. But I am already arguing for something that it is nearly impossible to get others to accept. Arguing for something that stands no chance in hell is just farther than I am willing to go.
Regardless, there is plenty of room for discussion of how govenrment should handle internal non-criminal miscreants. And no ideology provides the answer.
Dave”What do you suggest ?”
Read AND comprehend what I posted twice!!
I am not going to key it in again
OK, I would likely support most anything – including things that would require a constitutional amendment. I believe removing a senator as opposed to other forms of discipline would require a constitutional amendment.
I think it is constitutional to impeach a senator – but that require 66 votes. I beleive it has occurred something like 15 times. But 14 of those were removing confederate senators during the civil war.
Once was for treason.
Dave. Yes the powers in congress comes from the constitution. However, since that time we have a number of resolutions adopted by the senate and house to oversee activities of its members.
For instance :
Preamble to S. Res. 266, Code of conduct in 1968, which includes the statement ” the officer must never conduct his own affairs so as to infringe on the public interest”
Senate Resolution 338, adopted in the mid 60’s that state ” (the senate)is authorized to receive and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate”
So given these predecessor resolutions, there is no reason why the senate can not adopt one specifically for sexual misconduct and spell out EXACTLY. in plain simple language a moron could understand (because their are enough of those in congress which requires that to be the level of wording) what the sanctions will be if there is evidence that inappropriate sexual activity took place and to spell out what “timely” means in an investigation.
The problem is they will do nothing but talk about it for a few weeks and then something else comes to light that takes all the attention and voters just shrug it off like that is something that happens everyday and that is fine for politicians to behave like that.
I would tend to agree that little will occur but talk.
Moore is going to be elected, and seated,
Conyers and Franken will remain, and we will likely not find out which politicians resulted in millions of sexual harrasment payouts.
I think that “disciplining legislators” is limited to thing like stripping committee assignments, and impeachment – which requiress 66 votes.
I am not sure that spelling out what constitutes unaccpetable behavior matters – unless you can remove them for it.
I think we are both agreed that as things are it is too hard to impose consequences on a legislator.
And that they will not do what they are able to do.
We can connect two themes together.
This summer an FBI investigator – who had a lead position in:
The Clinton email investigation,
The FBI investigation of Trump/Russia
The Mueller investigation of Trump/Russia
was dismissed and demoted.
Because ?
He was having an extramarital affair with an FBI lawyer who worked for Andrew McCabe – aslo tied to all these investigations and throughout that affair exchanged texts with that lawyer strongly supporting Clinton and Opposing Trump.
While Mueller appropriately dumped this guy, there are far more serious issues.
This is NOT someone who started showing Bias in the summer of 2017.
This agent was demonstrating Bias with respect to BOTH Clinton and Trump and was a key investigator in BOTH investigations. He has been part of this entire mess for over 2 years.
Unless, this was only discovered in the summer of 2017 – this is a BIG problem for the FBI and likely Mueller.
This makes the claim “Partisan witch hunt” credible. It also makes the argument that the fix was in for Hillary credible.
Then there is the separate issue that the House Investigative Committee has been demanding information regarding this and related matters for months.
They still do not have it.
Further it appears that the Post story is an “intential leak” by the FBI – because they know they were going to have to provide Nunes what he asked for and the story was getting out anyway.
I would note that if the left – and Mueller are going to hold Flynn to this incredible ethical standard – it is increasingly evident the FBI set him up, then they subject themselves to the same standard.
Nunes is threatening contempt of congress against Rosenstein and Wray, and I think he should deliver.
It is increasingly evident that the FBI/DOJ not merely botched the Clinton investigation – but the preceding investigation into Russian corruption. Further this looks intentional rather than incompetent, and Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein were all part of it.
We should not have people running or involved in political investigations who are themselves suspected of corrupting prior political investigations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/two-senior-fbi-officials-on-clinton-trump-probes-exchanged-politically-charged-texts-disparaging-trump/2017/12/02/9846421c-d707-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.5c244ab386be
Pretty interesting. The FBI, far from being the “jewel in the crown” of law enforcement, appears to be quite tawdry and corrupt these days.
And, they moved this guy into HR, after kicking him out of the investigations? What, so that he could look into sexual harassment allegations? Yikes.
I particularly like this part:
“Among federal law enforcement officials, there is great concern that exposure of the texts they exchanged may be used by the president and his defenders to attack the credibility of the Mueller probe and the FBI more broadly, according to the people familiar with the matter.”
Ya think? As if the Mueller probe needed any other attacks on its credibility…
The standard we are supposed to use is
The appearance of impropriaty.
A judge, prosecutor or investigator must remove themselves from a case when there is the appearance of impropriety.
Not actual impropriety.
Sorry, Mueller never should have been given this role.
No one with any connection of any kind to the investigations of Clinton and Russia during the Obama administration should have been allowed into this investigations.
Just about the only person who has followed that guidance is Sessions.
On Policy I disagree with him on nearly everything, but he has integrity.
Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein do not, and there is reason to be dubious about McCabe.
Some things I learned about CIA director Brennan are applicable.
When he first came to the CIA in the 60’s or 70’s he had a marxist past and barely got in.
The CIA at the time was extremely politically conservative. But over time more people were coming from the left, and they brought more people from the left as they climber the ladder,
and the older more conservative people retired. Brennan softened his left leaning over time, but never lost them.
The left shift in government has been going on for a long time – it has progressed differently in different agencies, but we are very close to the point where the only conservatives in the federal government are:
The staff of elected conservative politicians
The political appointees of conservative presidents.
Trump is the president of a government that is itself openly hostile to him in virtually every possible way.
Pretty much everyone has started to notice that DOJ and FBI are practically actively thwarting the release of government records that would be beneficial to Trump.
I would also note that the FBI’s reputation for competence took some very large hits over the past couple of decades. We are still periodically getting stories about corruption or incompetence in various crime labs accross the country resulting in overturning myriads of convictions.
I think there are two in MA right now – where lab technicians were literally consuming drug evidence, high at work for years, and just faking the results.
Well the first big story of this kind came from the FBI crime lab in the early Bush administration.
A related matter arrose when the National Bureau of standards – I beleive at the request of the national chiefs of police produced a report and the state of police forensics.
The objective was to bolster the use of forensics and to encourage the supreme court to weigh them more favoralbly.
But the actually results were damning, and resulted in the supreme court increasing the ability to challenge expert testimony.
Many areas of forensics that all of us think are extremely good have been found to be junk science.
While it is possible to cause brain damage to babies by shaking them – it is NOT easy, Babies are resilient. There are still myriads of people – mostly women in prison for killing their baby who are mostly innocent – even if they did actually “shake” their babies.
Bite impression evidence is nearly worthless. You MIGHT be able to exclude someone as a suspect, but you can not match a bite mark conclusively.
And even excluding is dubious.
Hair and fiber matching evidence is total crap. Again you can exclude – that is about it.
You can say the carpet was green, or the perpitrator was blonde.
Very high on the list of crap forensic that most everyone thinks is sacred is matching bullets.
While not as bad as hair or fiber, or bite marks, matching bullets to a gun is not possible to anywhere near close to the degree needed for a conviction.
Fingerprints – which have been used for over a century are frequently relying on as low as a 6 point match. That has a very high rate of false positives.
DNA – using the tests that are currently being used – is represented as having 1 in a trillion chance of an exact match – the actual odds for the common tests, are only about 1:100000.
But even there, that is from a purely random population sample.
The odds of a false positive DNA match to a relative in some instances are as high as 60% or more. DNA can tell a jury that there is a 1:100000 chance that DNA that matches you came from a random stranger, but if other family members are also suspects, the odds tank.
All of the above also presume best case lab work – and that is extremely uncommon.
The largest single cause of failure at the FBI labs was confirmation Bias. Lab Technicians were not supposed to know the results that investigators were expecting. But they did, and this demonstrably skewed the results.
BTW we are having exactly the same problem with drug sniffing dogs. A properly trained sniffing dog, with a well trained handler who fully trusts the dog has a very high success rate.
But tests of real dogs and real police handlers produce abysmal results.
One of the largest errors is false positives. When police are subjected to testing where in some percent of test there will be no drugs in the test vehicle – the dogs nearly always get that right, but the expectation of the officer that there are drugs to be found is so high – that even in tests where they know there will be no drugs, they make the dogs check again and again, and one of two things occurs – the dog grasps that its handler is unhappy – and false alerts, or the handler reads an alert when there was none – both results are false positives.
The rate of false positives in testing of police/sniffer dogs is astronomical – and the fundamental problem is not the dog.
Anyway Lord Acton remains correct
Power corrupts – even at the FBI.
And federal employment is just a gigantic sinacure for the left. You can not expect the absence of political bias from ANY federal agency.
“Trump is the president of a government that is itself openly hostile to him in virtually every possible way.”
tRUMP is Prez of a nation that is itself openly hostile to him in every way.
Deservedly.
President Trump Job Approval Gallup Approve 34, Disapprove 61 Disapprove +27
He’s a disease.
He’s a despicable liar of the worst sort
Disrespectful of others like no previous president
A fool and an embarrassment to the nation.
Why wouldn’t patriotic bureaucrats in the FBI or elsewhere despise him.
I watched the English movie Hot Fuzz last night on Netflix. It’s an outlandish but entertaining cop spoof film about a former London constable sent to a sleepy British Village where a series of grisly murders take place. One of the most ghoulish killings takes place in a churchyard, when a pointed steeple on a high wall of the medieval church is shoved loose, and falls…
This one:
And what immediately sprung to my mind was: humm, how secure is the Capital Dome? Ten minutes later I got an emailed message from my New York friend (we often alert each other what were watching that night so we can chat afterwards) and he had a similar obvervation, his ‘fitting finish’ was with the letter T from a Trump Tower sign.
Get it? tRUMP IS THE MOST HATED president by the MOST number of American citizens in our lifetime. And again, deservedly.
Jay, why do you think we have Trump as President today? Why do you think he is doing the things he is doing? Forgetting the terrible candidates the democrats chose, look at the past few years. “W” was a man of higher moral standards. The left, after 911, tore into him for years and made him out to look like a fool. John McCain, a national hero, was not treated much better. And Romney was attacked for his religion, his wealth and many other issues. All of these men were of higher ethical and moral standards than any other candidate that ran, including the bitch that lied about everything.
So along comes Trump and he take pages out of Saul Alinsky’s book and uses those tactics to get elected and continue after election.
Examples
1.”The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy”. How much is Trump baiting the left and moderate establishment and what are they saying about him.
2. Alinsky believed that many Americans were living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and ripe for a turn to radical social change, to become politically active citizens. He believed at the time that Americans would turn to the right and wanted to stop that movement. Trump, on the other hand found the movement left and adopted Alinsky’s plans to stop that and move the forgotten middle class back to the right. He was elected on that effort.
3. Freedom Works, a right wing group associated with many Tea Party groups gives Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. And shortened rules are provided to membership.
I do not support Trump. I do not like his way of doing things. But I have much more dislike for Pelosi/Shumer politics that I have for a big mouth blow hard that is making people dislike him through his brash behavior. Lies. I don’t care because no one else cares. No one cared when Clinton lied about Benghazi. No one cared when Obama lied about targeting organizations by the IRS. No one cared when he lied about Ferguson and what took place leading to the riots. No one cared about fast and furious when border patrol officers lost their lives. DID YOU?? Did you post pages of comments when that happened like you are with Trump?A lot of noise came out of congress and that was all it was. Nothing happened! So I could care less about Trumps behavior.
Good point Ron.
When you cry wolf constantly – no one believes you when there is an actual wolf.
I do actually wish for almost any of the other GOP candidates as president.
But that is not what occurred.
I do not think Trump has particularly good character, nor do I like his style.
I oppose some of his policies – but that would be true for all candidates.
But character no longer matters – and it is the left that has brought that about – by trashing the character of good people AND by standing behind democrats of bad character.
Many of other either do not beleive the left any more.
Or we do not care if what they say is true.
Roy Moore appears to be about to get elected.
I know that, I understand it. But at the same time – how did we get here ?
I have also predicted that Sheriff Joe Arapio may well get elected tot he Senate from AZ.
Before Jay spews foam all over me – I do not WANT either of those.
But they are likely.
Republicans will deserve blame for putting forth repugnant candidates.
But Democrats will deserve as much blame for making that possible.
The problem with the politics of the left is that it loses effect.
I am not interested in a competition between Schumer, Pelosi and Trump for worst slimeball.
Just clean house.
Jay cites Trump’s approval rating – that of democrats as a whole is almost 10 points BELOW Trump’s and Republicans 10 points below that.
Trump likely is the most hated president possibly every – or atleast since Lincoln.
I am not exactly sure why those on the left who constantly preach tolerance would be celebrating their hatred of Trump.
The left has made it absolutely clear that a large portion of them are vile hate filled people.
The fact that they hate the person they lost to is not surprising.
Approval ratings are not “hate measures”.
Trumps approval rating was about where it is right now when he was elected.
I know you do not seem to comprehend this – but it is highly likely he is going to be re-elected.
You can jump up and down and froth as you wish. But the left and the media have spent about two years with the most brutal campaign of hate ever – and he was still elected, and nothing much has changed.
From Priscillas link: “The people discussing the matter did not further describe the political messages between Strzok and Page.”
So you don’t know what they specifically said. This was during the campaign, right?
Did they say trump was a “Kook who was unfit for office?” If so, should Lindsay Graham be removed from any deliberations concerning trump in the future?
Shouldn’t they have been promoted, for astute judgement?
Hopefully the Dems will take over and do that.
You are right – we do not know what was said – because the FBI will not provide the texts to congress despite their having been subpeoned by both the house and senate.
Further these texts STARTED over 3 years ago, there are purportedly ALOT of them.
They are not merely Anti-Trump, but there are also Pro-Clinton tweets.
I do not care if these government employees are anti-trump and pro-clinton.
I do care that Strzok particularly was a high ranking FBI investigator involved in three different key investigations while he had expressed strong biases for or against the targets of the investigation.
We all know that the FBI interviews of Clinton and her staff were royally botched.
They were not recorded, Mills as an example was allowed to serve as Clinton’s lawyer for those – despite the fact that she was a potential target for the investigation.
Had Flynn been given the kind of kid glove/incompetent Treatment from the FBI that Clinton received – he would still be NSA. That should be clear to even you.
Absent both a transcript of the Kislyak calls and a transcript of the FBI interview, there would be no evidence of misrepresentation – what he said is so close to what actually occured.
I have no idea what “should Lindsey Graham be removed from future trump deliberations”: means – though if Graham called Trump a Kook – possibly.
But I do not expect any senate deliberations on Trump.
FBI or DOJ personal who demonstrate bias – either in favor of or in opposition to the target’s of their investigation should not be part of those investigations.
That is called corruption, not astute judgement.
“They are not merely Anti-Trump, but there are also Pro-Clinton tweets.”
How many Anti-Clinton tweets and emails and conversation were there?
There wouldn’t have been much Pro or Anti Trump before he was running.
But Before the last campaign there was much Anti Clinton sentiment in all the bureaus.
Traditionally, law and order agents leaned Republican. Anti Clinton rumors popped up frequently. Are you deaf dumb and blind to that?
In other words, you’re projecting from one reported incident this summer. And as usual you extrapolated that into BS LAND. Which is why I have ZERO faith in anything you say.
“How many Anti-Clinton tweets and emails and conversation were there?”
Can you read ? We do not know. The FBI has not provided this information – despite the fact that both the house and senate have subpeoned it and much more for many months.
It has been represented by the FBI that there were extensive political texts between the two over an almost two year period.
I do not even know how the press knows this – except that sa Sazrok was demoted alomost certainly someone in the FBI or DOJ reported him, and possibly also leaked this to the press.
Or the press noted the demotion and inquired.
“There wouldn’t have been much Pro or Anti Trump before he was running.”
You still do not grasp that this STARTED while Sazork was a lead investigator in the Clinton Email mess. Sazork is on of the agents who interviewed Clinton and her staff – without a record of the interview, which is not normal.
“But Before the last campaign there was much Anti Clinton sentiment in all the bureaus.”
Again READ. The texts were PRO-CLINTON.
“Traditionally, law and order agents leaned Republican.”
True – decades ago. It was also once true of the CIA. Neither are true today.
Traditionally an FBI agent would get fired purely for having an extra-marital affair.
“Anti Clinton rumors popped up frequently. Are you deaf dumb and blind to that?”
This is not a rumor. This is actual evidence of bias.
If you find evidence of an investigating agent demonstrated actual Bias against Clinton – they to should be removed from the investigation.
“In other words, you’re projecting from one reported incident this summer. And as usual you extrapolated that into BS LAND. Which is why I have ZERO faith in anything you say”
Nope. I am not projecting anything. Some of the information is from the FBI – we know that Szorak was removed from the Trump investigation, and that he was effectively demoted.
I beleive at this time the FBI has admitted to the texts, that they started about 2 years ago and continued through the extramarital relationship.
But it has not provided further details.
What we do not know, we do not know because the FBI is not providing it.
There are all kinds of possibilities – but there is only one truth.
The FBI is not sharing that – though inevitably they are going to be forced to.
Just as they finally had to release the 39 emails sent immediately after the Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting, where the FBI and DOJ were furiously looking to find who told the press that the meeting happened.
Can you say “cover up” ?
Dave very interesting. I have not been keeping up with all that is taking place. Government anti liberty overload.
Does anyone really think much has changed in the FBI since Hoover ruled the roost? The only thing I think that has changed is the names and faces. The rest is just as corrupt as it was when JEH was director.
And one only needs to look at Muller to understand what I am talking about. Even though he is not currently FBI, he IS FBI! Total overreach, intimidation and “blackmail”. And how much is it costing Americans for this lynching.
I am reminded of Mark Anthony’s eulogy for Julius Caesar
We were told Comey was an honorable man.
We were told Mueller wa an honorable man.
We were told Rosenstein was an honorable man.
I honestly believed this. People I respected – who are now criticizing all of the above were once telling us these guys were all honorable.
Yet all three of these played a role in slow walking and hiding an investigation into Russian corruption of american businessmen from congress to prevent it from jephardizing the Uranium One deal.
Some of the politics of the left on this has been completely nuts.
We are told by the left to be fearful of Russia – Putin is evil, and Russia is very nearly the threat it was during the cold war.
We are told this by the same people who were trying to normalize relations with Russia, who were in bed with Russian oligarchs, who were collecting half million dollar speaking fees, whbo were hiding acts of Russian malfeasance from congress and the public, and then suddenly after they lost the election, they turned on a dime, turned on Russia. Radically changed US foreign policy with respect to both Russia and Israel in the last month of a lame duck presidency,
And these are the people who want to tell is Trump is evil and in bed with Russia.
One of the problems that Jay and Roby and the left do not get – is that you do not have to like Trump in the slightest, to easily reach the conclusion that They, the left are much worse.
I did not vote for Trump – but I was never voting for Clinton.
But even so – Clinton has managed to become far MORE repugnant since the election.
It is increasingly obvious that everything bad beleived about her before the election was true and only a part of the story. It is becoming self evident that the fix was in on the investigations of clinton from the begining.
It is also evident that the “deep state” is in the tank for the left to the max.
There is video of Trump in January dealing with the Flynn resignation, repeatedly saying that he was told that Flynn lied in his reports and he read the reports and could not find anything wrong and had his lawyer read the reports and could not find anything wrong, and that essentially he had to have it very carefully explained to him exactly how these reports were misstatements – and he still did not really see it as significant – but Sally Yates is telling him this is not good, and Mike Pence is telling him this is not good, But Flynn is a good man, and ….
While Trump never mentions lying to the FBI – the supposed ly is the same.
Regardless, Trump never seems to get why the discrepancy in Flynn’s reports was significant.
I recall at the time thinking much the same.
Now we know a whole lot more.
Now I see this quite differently.
Now this is looking much more like an orchestrated plot by the Obama administration to knee cap the incoming administration.
I would suggest something else to the left. All of this has consequences.
I posted here that Trump should have pardoned Clinton as he took office.
It was the right thing to do.
I do not feel that way anymore.
I want a thorough investigation of lots of crap that went on in the prior administration.
I want the members of the Obama administration held to exactly the same standards they are holding Trump’s people to.
I want to see alot of former Obama staffers in jail.
I am getting really angry about this – and yes, Trump is completely correct – this witch hunt.
But I do nto care if Mueller actually manages to “get Trump” – if we get to conduct the same witch hunt by the same standards with the prior administration as targets.
I want Mueller and Comey and Rosenstein investigated and probably indicted for covering up and slow walking Russian corruption to protect the U1 deal from 2010 through to 2015.
I want just about everybody in the FBI and DOJ associated with the U1 investigation, the Clinton Foundation investigation, and the Clinton email investigation sacked.
I want Bill Clinton and AG Lynch indicted for obstruction of justice.
As well as Abedin, Mills and a few other Clinton staffers.
And I am barely started, I have not touched on The IRS mess, or the unmasking, or the continued leaking – nearly all of which has been false.
We have Jay and Roby cheering because Flynn has plead.
What is increasingly obvious is that Flynn actually is a decent person – that Trump was right, that Comey should have left him alone.
I think that the GOP deeply regrets capitulating to Mueller’s investigation.
I probably won’t get any of what I want.
But this stuff always comes back arround.
To Roby and Jay – expect absolutely ZERO sympathy why you are whining because someone you think is decent is being investigated and forced into a guilty plea to protect their family over some meaningless misstatement that was not material.
We listened to the left rant about going after Clinton as a witch hunt – but we have actual lie after lie, not inconsequential incongruities – which is not only the issue with Flynn, but pretty much all this Trump “lies” crap – fine, I admit, his 140 character tweets do not absolutely accurately present every detail. But most of us Read Flynn’s statements and the facts and say – sounds correct to me. We read Trump’s tweets and the facts and while Trump often does nto know when to shut up, and does nto express himself as if he is testifying in court, still he is basically correct.
When we say Clinton lied – we mean lied – like flat out lied.
She lied under oath to congress, she lied in documents provided to the court in the FOIA lawsuits, she lied to the public.
One of the things that gets me the most about Clinton was her scape goating of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
This guy is a tiny player. Insignificant. He made a video that had something like 400 total hits across the world. Before Benghazi no one in libya had seen it.
Yet, Clinton – knowing this was not true blamed that video for ben ghazi.
And then promised the families of the dead from Ben Ghazi that she would get Nakoula which she did. He ended up in Jail.
While he is not some super reputable guy – he never asked to be part of something that large.
He did not ask to be the target of the Secretary of State.
Most of these people – Trump, Flynn, Clinton etc.
They know what they are in. They volunteered for this mess.
Nakoula is just some little grifter who got caught up in something huge.
Anyway, I am reminded of Matt 18:21-35 The parable of the unforgiving servant.
Clinton and the left get the same treatment they gave others.
They get held to the same standards.
If that takes down Trump – I can live with that, because it is also going to jail half the obama administration.
I have told you many times that Trump’s election was the consequence of your idiotic identity politics – but you remain clueless.
You seem to think that because you or even some of the rest of us, do not like Trump, that it is OK to brake the rules to get him. That after listening to 18 months of nonsense that Clinton was somehow innocent for
hiding here official emails from everyone – because get a clue, she did not have a private email server because it went well with the china. The entire purpose of the private email server was to HIDE what she was doing as secretary of state – from the public, from FOIA requests, and from the government itself. That alone was a violation of the law – though not necescarily a crime.
Regardless, she was breaking the law – and she knew it.
And she stonewalled and lied – under oath, and pulled every trick in the book and destroyed evidence that was under subpena and court order, and she sent boatloads of classified information unsecurely – again in violation of the law.
Do you guys really think that anything that Papadolouis or Flynn has plead to is more than a tiny fraction as bad as what we know Clinton did ?
Here is what CNN has to say – maybe you think they have some credibility – particularly when they are reporting what the FBI had to say.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/fbi-agent-removed-trump-investigation/index.html
Dave three comments:
1. Kind of bad when Clinton News Network reports something this damaging to the investigation.
2. Sessions just needs to keep his mealy mouth shut. He is about as incompetent as a pediatric physician trying to do intracranial brain surgery.
3. How bad is it when the IRS does not want to participate ( Last comment in article)
Wow! there is a very strong correlation between your IQ and your support for free speech absolutism.
I dunno. Millennials favor free speech more than moderates? And if high-IQ people top the list of free-speech absolutists, why do so many college professors and students favor limits on free speech?
Yes, very odd . Liberals are certainly not free-speech absolutists either, although I could see how they might THINK that they are, since they favor free speech for themselves…….
It would be nice to know what the question(s) were to develop these results. For instance, you could get a very different result based on.
1. Do you believe conservative speakers should be free to address the college students.
or
2. Do you believe speakers should be free to address the college students.
Google the title at the top of the graphic,
that should lead a published article with a link to the study.
And that should provide you the methodology.
I suspect the ideological differences and the age differences have very low statistical significance.
While I will guess that IQ correlates strongly – i.e. the results graphed show something meaningful.
But you can read the methodology – I did not. Maybe I am wrong.
There is no catagory for libertarians – who are going to go through the roof on free speech.
That is practically a tautology.
I have addressed differences in IQ between conservatives and progressives before.
Whether the left has higher IQ’s than the right depends on where libertarians are grouped.
When Libertarians are grouped with the right – conservative IQ’s are about 4 points higher than those of the left. When libertarains are not grouped with either the right or left, conservatives tend to run about 1 point lower than the left. Given the relative size of the left, the right and libertarians that suggests a 20 point average IQ difference between libertarains and the left or right which are nearly the same. BTW the work of Haidt and several others tends to confirm that.
I would also suggest looking more deeply at the methodology of the study if you are concerned about narrow issues like why moderates are low – my guess would be their definition of moderate.
What strikes me is that by ideology, and by age group the variance is not that large.
But the IQ correlation is incredible. More than even I expected.
I would also note that liberal is a basterized word.
As has been raised repeatedly – the Free Speech movement in the US began in the 60’s among liberals at the University of California Berkeley, and it it is being killed in the US by “liberals” at the University of California Berkeley.
The left is less frequently using the term liberal and more frequently using the term progresive and I think that is more accurate.
The 60’s left – for all its problems was more liberal. The modern left is not liberal.
And to an increasing extent does not self identify as liberal.
Rick you are making the leap that college professors and students are high IQ individuals. Have you been on campus lately? I would argue that IQ is something lacking in that environment, along with common sense on most campuses, especially the elitist liberal institutions.
“I dunno. Millennials favor free speech more than moderates? And if high-IQ people top the list of free-speech absolutists, why do so many college professors and students favor limits on free speech?”
Not my results – you can look up the survey – I think googling free speech absolitism and demography will get you there.
With specific respect to professors – I think the problem is your assumption that college professors are high IQ. While they are not low, they are overrated.
Academics are not risk takers – high risk aversion does not correlated well with high IQ.
One very strong factor correlating with IQ is vocabulary. By a significant factor the largest vocabularies are demonstrated by businessmen – particularly those very near the top.
Another High IQ attribute of bussinessmen that is rare among academics is the breadth fo the scope of their knowledge. In myriads of areas today our modern culture encourages increasingly high levels of specialization as a root to success – and this works. even moderate IQ people can become valuable experts in very narrow areas.
Academics show very high aptitude in very narrow fields. Many tend to be ignorant of the entire world outside their field.
If you think of IQ is like water – you can take the same amount of water and spread it thin and broad in a pan, or very tall in a narrow glass.
Really high IQ people know alot about alot. Academics demands knowing alot about a little.
Business demands knowing alot about alot. There are a few other professions that work that way, but not many, and with few exceptions we are moving towards pushing people to have tall thin knowledge rather than shallower and broader knowledge.
.
I would also note that IQ is also about logic skills.
Really high IQ people can go into almost any field, learn a minimal amount about that field and still perform incredibly well in it – because excellent logic skills, plus a small amount of knowledge is equal to large amounts of knowledge.
IQ is not a measure of knowledge, it is a measure of processing power – logical skills.
We supliment IQ with knowledge to make ourselves more valuable – arguably we can not increase our IQ, but we can increase our knowledge.
@ Rick: Both parties are hypocrites. When you goose the gander, you come up with a clean finger. When the other side gooses the gander we yell “look at that finger, it ain’t clean”.
Free speech, that is for our side, not yours.
Telling the truth. That’s for the same people that pay taxes: the little people.
Amen
One comment I saw elsewhere asked
If lying to the FBI is a crime,
what is it when the FBI lies to us ?
JW has finally received a collection of 39 emails that were sent between DOJ and FBI immediately after the Bill Clinton/AG Lynch Tarmac meeting.
ALL of these emails are about ONE thing.
Finding out who leaked the meeting to the press with some explict references to “getting” them.
Can someone explain to me why an after the fact leak of “unscheduled” meeting between two public figures is within the scope of the DOJ or FBI to investigate ?
And why was this kept secret for so long ?
Inqiuiries were made for FBI records almost immediately after the meeting.
It has taken nearly 3 years and an FOIA lawsuit to pry this out.
Further the FBI redacted the crap out of the emails – so that it is not possible to determine the identity of the DOJ and FBI people seeking out the “leak”
Does anyone doubt that absent a “leak” we would never have found out about this ?
BTW Hillary Clinton has a record of punishing those who “Out” her misconduct.
The IG that gave a less than favorable report on the Clinton private email server essentially ended his carreer and was forced into retirement.
So Dave, please explain how this relates to inappropriate sexual contact. I am totally missing the point.
The only issue we are discussing any more is sexual misconduct ?
There is a whole serious of posts on Flynn – I am not aware of any allegations of sexual misconduct regarding Flynn.
Separately, I honestly find the sexual misconduct discussion boring.
While there might be some conflicts between us.
I do not think anyone here things sexual assualts should not be prosecuted.
I think most of us think that egregious sexual harrassment should result in being fired or worse.
The areas of disagreement are:
Should govenrment be involved in sexual harrassment ?
What constitutes sexual harassment ?
Have we gone too far ? Or not far enough ?
The relevant exchange is pretty far into this transcript of an Obama State Department Press briefing
Seach for the text starting
“No, I got just one more.”
The Obama administration was well aware of Flynn’s communications with Kislyak and had no problem with them.
As others have stated contact between incoming administration offficials and foreign states is not unsual and not a violation of the logan act or any other law.
https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2017/01/266932.htm
“The Obama administration was well aware of Flynn’s communications with Kislyak and had no problem with them.”
WRONG to ‘no problem with them.’
As their WARNING to t-Lump not to hire Flynn shows.
Did you bother to actually read the state department press conference transcript I provided from the state departments web site ?
The state department:
Knew Flynn and other incoming Trump administration members were in contact with Kislyak specifically and foreign leader generally and specifically stated that was normal and to be expected.
Jay;
Here is a criticism of Trump I can actually agree with fully.
https://beinglibertarian.com/donald-trumps-presidency-meeting-libertarian-ends/
Different views on the tax revenue effects of the “tax cut”.
I am not making a prediction – beyond: Everyone is wrong.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454261/jcts-dynamic-score-misses-mark-economic-growth-tax-plan?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=5a239a9d04d3014c7e27090a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
On political “cohesion”
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/11/cohesionists_un.html
NYT on sexual harrassment.
Hello Priscilla! You said: “But, I think that we have lost perspective on what types of behavior are “small potatoes,” best able to be handled on a personal level, and what types of behavior are more serious.”
And Dave you commented you were in favor of people handling their own situations on a personal level whenever possible, rather than going to intermediaries (and especially leaving your forever-despised GOV’T out of it as much as possible).
Yes, people learning how to handle situations on their own, when they can, especially “small potatoes” before they become bigger potatoes, is an important aspect of this sexual misconduct fever that I think all rational people can agree on, and it is an important part of many of our societal/cultural issues.
But Dave, your beloved free markets are flawed and always have been, and this sexual misconduct firestorm helps prove that. People are being fired by companies just for accusations because the companies fear losing money, either by customers going away or via lawsuits, etc. The Prairie Home Companion guy is a sad example of this I think. This “social justice by market fear” thing (for lack of better description) opens doors for mob hysteria. For every three decent people with a laptop and an opinion there are two people with crazy bad ideas and one delinquent with bad intentions in exactly that ratio (based on no statistics whatsoever, just getting a point across).
Free markets are powerful economic engines, but they are far from perfect. Government is usually slow and inefficient and imperfect, but in some ways it is essential for holding society together at the seams. Human beings are flawed, and so we need as many good ones as possible to sort things out with good sense. This makes us important. It validates us. We are needed, in big ways and in myriad little ways. Power to the People!
Oh my! I just bet myself a cherry pie on the number of replies That poke at free market dogma will yield. I am off to the store to buy it now (cherry pie). Run for shelter. Hide the women and children. Warm up your word count function.
“Oh my! I just bet myself a cherry pie on the number of replies That poke at free market dogma will yield. I am off to the store to buy it now (cherry pie). Run for shelter. Hide the women and children. Warm up your word count function.”
I have only two issues with Pat’s “attack”.
The presumption that government would do better is absurdly false.
In this particular instance I do not think the market has gotten it wrong.
There is no one who has been canned thus far that I think was canned unjustly.
Regardless, I agree that people get it wrong sometimes – quite often.
They get it wrong outside of government, and they get it wrong inside of government.
The latter is far more harmful than the former.
Of course free markets are not perfect. Have I claimed otherwise ?
Government is not perfect, nor is any other process that involves humans.
Your criticism is that markets do not acheive what is not possible.
True, but not significant.
They are however less prone to error that government, more likely to self correct, and less likely to cause disproportionate harm.
Further in the current instances I think the markets have gotten it right. None of these figures who have lost their jobs engaged in conduct that the overwhelming majority of people think is appropriate.
While I accept that over reaction is possible, I do not see it as occuring right now.
The sexual misconduct firestorm is nescescary.
Companies are firing people who have engaged in deplorable conduct – for fear of losing money.
Their fears are likely legitimate – as alot of us are pissed about this.
No, Keillor is NOT an example. First you are presuming that MPR does nto have knowledge of more misconduct than has been made public. It is highly likely in all of these cases that employers are aware of allegations that have not yet been made public. Second Keillor is like Cosby – in that he brand is tied to his public wholesome character. His conduct destroyed his brand. MPR did not do that Keillor did.
While I do not see this as “social justice” at the same time – if actual social justice warriers can accomplish their goals through markets rather than by mangling our laws – I have zero problems with that.
With respect to your non-statistical statistics – absolutely.
In 1960 the market would have destroyed a major media figure if it came out that they were gay
today it would destroy those who discriminated against them.
The attitudes of people are wrong and change over time.
We do not want the bad attitudes of one era encoded in law and imposed by force in another.
Mistakes in peoples attitudes will correct faster over time in markets than in law.
We do not disagree that government is essential.
But we disagree over the scope of what is essential from government.
I absolutely do not want government handling the things markets handle badly – because they are by definition WORSE if handled by government.
Look at the recent Lindsay Shepard mess at Wilford Laurrie in Canada.
As Jordan Peterson noted WL is in theory in deep shit over this.
Not only according to canadian law is WL responsible for any harm that might occur as a consequence of Shepards purportedlly transphobic lecture, but they can actually be held responsible for mysogyny and racism in their efforts to “correct” Shepard.
As Peterson notes – and history – in both Canada and the UK have demonstrated these types of laws have more frequently been used to supress the wpeach of the weak in favor of the powerful.
Human beings are flawed, and we actually know that Government is a magnet for particular types of flawed people.
You can not seem to grasp that flawed people with more power are more dangerous than flawed people with less power.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
James Madison Federalist 51
McCarthy as always is excellent.
Though his suggestion that Trump appoint a SC to investigate collusion in the Iran Nuke deal is a near perfect counter foil to this the more interesting observation that is coming from this Flynn situation is further indications of misconduct by the Obama administration during the transition.
I think that McCarthy is likely incorrect and that Flynn could not have avoided the FBI interview,
but we would have to know more about how it was represented to him.
I have also addressed the claim that Flynn “lied” in that interview. The discrepancy in Flynn’s remarks does NOT meet the legal requirements for criminal misrepresentation.
Innaccuracy is not sufficient.
Further the misrepresentation must be material to what was being investigated.
But more important the agents questioned Flynn about something that they knew, that was not a crime and therefore had no purpose besides entrapment.
It is increasingly evident that the Obama administration was deliberately targeting and investigating an incoming administration during the transition.
Even the UN security council resolution regarding Israel and the sanctions against Russia is damning to Obama.
The Obama administration was a lame duck administration attempting to advance significant foreign policy initiatives at odds with the incoming administration in the last days of its term.
While legal that is unheard of. As Obama famously stated – elections have consequences, and one of the consequences is that US foreign policy was changed – and that occured on Nov. 7 2016 when the people chose a different president. Not in January when Trump was inaugurated.
The left is free to obstruct Trump to the extent they are able – but NOT using the federal government to do so.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454293/robert-mueller-trump-russia-investigation-michael-flynn-obama-administration-foreign-policy-israel
“his suggestion that Trump appoint a SC to investigate collusion in the Iran Nuke deal is a near perfect counter foil..”
T-Lump will not do anything to hurt the Russians like that.
If he wanted to, he could CANCEL the deal now.
Why hasn’t he?
And if the disrepency in Flynn’s remark doesn’t reach the legal requirements, why would Flynn take a plea deal?
How you repeatedly arrive at nonsensical conclusions never ceases to amaze…
Aparently you can not read.
the IRAN NUKE DEAL – not the Russia Uranium One deal.
Though separately – why is it you presume Trump would not hurt Russia, given that he already has ?
He has cut Russia out of the mideast, he litterally threatened to have US pilots shoot down Russians if they did not get out of the way in Syria, His missle attack on Assad so angered Russia they sent they most modern Frigate to the Mediterainian to intimidate US warships.
He has done everything possible to favor US domestic energy production which is a knife in the back of Russia which has been in a long recession caused by low energy prices.
Why would Flynn take the plea deal ?
Trivial – people take plea deals all the time – even provably innocent people.
Fighting Mueller and winning – even with a 90% certainty of winning would have been ridiculously expensive and even if the risk was low the cost of being wrong was high.
I pretty much agree with McCarthy – this plea is a sign of weakness on Muellers part – not strength.
Contrary to many of the pundits – Mueller’s leverage over Flynn is small and defined by the plea agreement. It would be prosecutorial misconduct to add additional charges after a plea agreement has been reached – it is likely also a 5th amendment violation.
Flynn has constrained Mueller’s leverage on him and his son to this single issue.
So long as Flynn meets what the courts perceive as his obligation to cooperate, he faces no further liability. If as an example in cooperating Flynn refuses to provide what Mueller wants – Mueller would actually have to prove that what he wants actually exists and that Flynn is capable of providing it.
We have been digging into this for almost two years now.
WE have found out next to nothing that we did not know near the start, and the little new we have learned is FAR less than would be expected if there was actual criminal conspiracy.
Regardless, with few exceptions I am mirroring two prominent left leaning criminal and civil rights attorney’s, and a former US attorney. Thus far you have cited a bunch of inconsequential law professors – who to my knowledge have never tried a criminal case.
And then there’s Schlump’s slip of the tweet:
“Trump tweeted Saturday: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!”
“It’s unclear why Trump would cite lying to the FBI as a reason for firing Flynn. Doing so suggests the president knew at the time that Flynn had done something that is against the law, and therefore the investigation could not be as frivolous as he’s been portraying.
It’s also unclear how he would know that, if information about Russian contacts had not reached him, as he has been implying in his own defense.”
https://apnews.com/de5d6aa60b1048188d31cdb3c33ba5e5
Given that there is no obstruction of justice case and never has been, that would be a dead story.
Not especially interested in what a journalist from a canadian newspaper says about what unneamed purported experts claim.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-medias-flynn-sanity-1512171386?shareToken=stec6a5c2e5c9844f993ebaa166895b21e&reflink=article_email_share
Still Clueless. And horribly innaccurate.
The communications between Flynn and Kislyak occured in late December 2016 – two months after the election, at a time when Flynn was the presumptive incoming NSA.
Not only was Trump aware of them, but The Obama State department was aware of them, as was Pence.
What Trump, Pence were not aware of and Flynn should have been, is that communications with Kislyak were being monitored.
Flynn did not lie to Trump or Pence or anyone about communicating with Kislyak.
Everyone including the public knew about that.
He misrepresented the content of the exchange with Kislyak.
Personally I think the misrepresntation was insignificant.
There are purportedly 4 separate “lies” by Flynn. Every single one of them devolves to Flynn did not answer in detail.
As an example Flynn noted that Kislyak raised sanctions and that he answered non-committally.
The transcripts reveal that he asked the Russians to do as little of nothing as possible.
The “lie” is “noncommitally” is not exactly the same as asking the Russians to do nothing.
That is very close to a distinction without a difference.
Regardless, it is not a distinction that is going to hold up in court.
I would suggest reading the law on false statements.
Though honestly it does not matter, If you want to send Flynn to jail for this – fine. Clinton and her staff get adjacent cells for even more egregious falsifications.
We have Clinton and staff making self contradictory statements – to congress under oath, to the FBI, and in sworn pleadings in the FOIA cases that are still ongoing.
The only part of Trump’s tweet that is not 100% consistent with remarks a year ago, is the additon of the FBI to Trump’s list of people Flynn lied too.
You do not seem to get Flynn was never accused of lying about talking with Kislyak.
The accusation was that he misrepresented the content of those communications to Pence.
Regarding your AP story:
What is new ?
We have the Comey memo’s regarding communications with Trump.
As Comey reports them, they were not obstruction of justice nearly a year ago when this nonsensical claim was first trotted out. Nothing improves that.
Further, the President of the United States can not “obstruct justice” by acting in a way that any part of the executive branch would be properly allowed to do.
ALL executive powers – including the power to excercise prosecutorial discretion are vested in the president. Trump could ORDER Comey to drop the Flynn matter and it would not be obstruction.
Nixon obstructed justice by secretly and illegally arranging for payment of hush money to the watergate burglars. That is acts outside the powers of the executive branch.
Regardless, though I think McCarthy was slightly less than serious about Trump ordering an investigation into Iran-Obama collusion regarding the Iran nuke deal. the point is still clear – this is political and it is far outside the norms, and if we are going to go there – then we need to go there for all – we need to conduct exactly the same kind of investigations of U1 and the Iran Nuke deal, using exactly the same standards of conduct.
How about the direct detailed oppinion of a prominent criminal and civil rights attorney who openly admits that he does not like and did not vote for Trump.
Derschowitz simplifies the reasons that Flynn’s misstatements were not crimes – with one word.
“Immaterial.”
If you are interviewed by the FBI and you misstate what you had for breakfast – you have not committed a crime.
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/362948-why-did-flynn-lie-and-why-did-mueller-charge-him-with-lying
Well, for a day or two after Rick posted an actual discussion, interesting, thoughtful, many sided, even lighthearted occurred.
Now, back to the same old same old, The Dave Denialism Deluge. His same old points will be repetitiously ground into dust or four or six weeks without any conversions. His opinions are better than your opinions, ad nauseum. His extreme libertarianism will beat up your whatever.
Thanks Pat and Mike (and Rick) for the brief moment of sunlight! See you again in 6 weeks I hope.
“Now, back to the same old same old, The Dave Denialism Deluge. His same old points will be repetitiously ground into dust or four or six weeks without any conversions. His opinions are better than your opinions, ad nauseum. His extreme libertarianism will beat up your whatever.”:
Long rant about me – without ever actually citing whatever it is that has offended you.
With respect to the sexual harrassment, sexual assualt topic – the range of oppinions here is fairly well confined. Whatever disagrements we have are small.
Nor are they particularly partisan.
The closest they come to “ideological” is that I see it as a mistake to expand governments role, while Pat and possibly Ron appear to want government to have a role – because they beleive that will end “the witch hunt”. Looking at Washington I think that argument is laughably false.
Or are you complaining about topics other than the sexual harrament issue ?
Are we back to the nonsense that “Dave posts more than I do – that is evil” ?
Do you actually wish to discuss anything of substance ?
I do.
YOUR endless efforts to turn TNM away from a debate about issues, into a debate about you or I is repugnant.
Do you have something to say about any topic at all – aside from ranting about other posters ?
Everyone here wishes to discuss issues of substance.
Alone among us, you wish to do something far different that is impossible:
To Win. To dominate, to vanquish, to overwhelm, to bury other points of view and opinions.
There is some of that on the part of other posters at times but nothing on the scale of your behavior. For you, winning isn’t everything, its the ONLY thing. You fail to grasp that you can’t win, can’t vanquish, and can’t bury other points of view on an internet blog, other than literally under numerical weight.
“Everyone here wishes to discuss issues of substance.
Alone among us, you wish to do something far different that is impossible:
To Win. To dominate, to vanquish, to overwhelm, to bury other points of view and opinions.”
Both wrong and likely projection, further you are returning to my point.
No, you do not want to discuss issues. You want to discuss people – and not the people the issues are about, but specifically the posters you disagree with.
“There is some of that on the part of other posters at times but nothing on the scale of your behavior. For you, winning isn’t everything, its the ONLY thing. You fail to grasp that you can’t win, can’t vanquish, and can’t bury other points of view on an internet blog, other than literally under numerical weight.”
I do not care whether you are here to “win” or “Vanquish”, “overwhelm”, “bury”, ….
If that is what you wish to do – fine. The only tool you have available to do so is words.
Be my guest.
But again you stupidly think you can read the minds of others – mine specifically, you claim to know what I want, regardless of the fact that I have openly said what I want and it is different.
In your omniscience you are certain that I am lying.
Worse still though you are wrong – it would be equally irrelevant even if you were right.
This is a blog. Posts are words, nothing more. I can speak my mind, I can rant, I can try to persuade. I can do anything that can be done with words.
But I can not “win” or “Vanquish”, “overwhelm”, “bury”, ….
The only power words have is over the minds of others – and presumably you control your own mind. is persuasion.
You are making the same stupid error that you and Jay keep making regarding Russia.
You are presuming that it is possible to use words to compel someone else to do something they do not wish to do.
The russian social media presence was inconsequential – but had it been enormous, its effect would still have been solely limited to persuasion. If by some change Russia changed the votes of many americans – they still freely made their own choose. Your claim devolves to not being willing to trust people to make the choice you want them to make, unless you have total control of what they see and hear.
What we see and hear sometimes influences us. That is how it is SUPPOSED to work. But ultimately our own minds determine whether what we see and hear influences us.
We do not lose our ability to make free choices as a consequence of greater data.
The same is true of our posting here.
If I posted 10 times what I do now – it would not diminish you ability to speak as you wish.
BTW it is not me that fails to realize that this is an internet blog – that force does not exist, that the things you are claiming I want are impossible.
Again lets assume you are completely right.
You are saying I am chasing the impossible.
SO ?
Why does that concern you ?
It is not that I can’t “win” or “Vanquish”, “overwhelm”, “bury”, …. that has you upset – that would be stupid, why bother ?
It is that you are sufficiently delusional – just as you are with Russia to beleive that I can.
That I can effect change that you do not want, and either that such change was not accomplished voluntarily, or that you have some right to prohibit it.
I do not expect to “win” or “Vanquish”, “overwhelm”, “bury”, …. but if I manage to alter peoples free choices through words – So What ?
If the Russian’s managed to do so through words – So What ?
Why are you entitled to restrict what others see and hear ?
In the event that people can be influenced – what right do you have to FORCIBLY prevent that ?
You have the same power as I and as russia – to speak, with or without the hope of “influence”.
Why do you persist in this incredibly stupid argument ?
“You fail to grasp that you can’t win, can’t vanquish, and can’t bury other points of view on an internet blog, other than literally under numerical weight.”
Numbers do not have weight.
“Why do you persist in this incredibly stupid argument ?”
Well Dave, if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.
““Why do you persist in this incredibly stupid argument ?”
Well Dave, if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.”
Non sequitur.
“Well Dave, if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.”
Non sequitur.”
Nonsense.
Nope, just non-sequitur. or in english – “it does not follow”
Cept that is does. Your turn.
Not in the real world.
“Not in the real world”
The connection is perfectly simple . Show this conversation to someone in your family who reads and have them explain it to you.
First: The actual post.
[[[[[
““Why do you persist in this incredibly stupid argument ?”
Well Dave, if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.”
Non sequitur
]]]]]
Still do not grasp the rules of logic.
It is irrelevant whether you think there is a connection.
non-sequitur means the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
In this instance that is true for several reasons.
Because there is no connection – not even the kind you imply.
Because one of the premises is a question – and therefore not a premise
An analogy:
Dave: Why do you hate tomatoes ?
Roby: Well Dave, if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.”
Dave: Non sequitur
It pretty much does not matter what the question is, you will always end up with your argument being a non-sequitur.
“Because there is no connection – not even the kind you imply.”
I wonder what would happen if your exhausted computer were to decide it was simply never going to process the words “there is no” again. What would you do? What would you do on TNM if for some supernatural reason your favorite “there is no” arguments were denied to you?
Whether you know it or not, every time you use the phrase “there is no” people on TNM become surer than ever that there definitely is some of whatever you just denied exists!
You were whining about my post. I answered, if you don’t like them don’t read. Now, if you think that feigning being the dullest knife in the box is a successful strategy, as long as you have the last word and win, then you will just continue on (and on and on) with that. Which will be humourous.
You have expressly denied any interest or knowledge of philosophy.
There is no reason for me to discuss with you hypothetical universes.
As you suddenly seem to have taken to pondering such hypotheticals.
My arguments are specific to this universe, the real world, the reason, logic, natural laws that apply here.
You can presume that when I state something I am only referring to the real world.
If I assert a false premise – demonstrating that falsifies that argument. Saying a premise is wrong is far from demonstrating it.
You love the term “denial” – and you use it badly.
I know you hate higher order thinking – such as philosophy, but it is actually necessary.
There are an infinite number of possible truths.
Nearly all of them are false.
1 + 1 = 3, 1 + 1 = 4, 1 + 1 = 5 …. are all false (in this particular possible universe).
Of all the things that are not obviously false – that MIGHT be true, nearly all of those are inconsistent with each other.
This is the reason that logic, math science are structured as they are – with a very small number of axioms – things that are self-evidently true but can not be proven, that are then used to prove or disprove everything else.
Anything that might be true that is in conflict with an axiom – or with something that is proven using axioms is false.
Your eyes may have glassed over because you do not care. But whether you care or not, the above is the foundation of logic, reason, math, science, economics, …. even most religion.
We do not inhabit a world in which whatever we wish is true.
If you assert something as true – that has consequences – anything that conflicts with it must be false.
The “denialism” is yours. You inhabit a world that does not exist, one in which you can pick and choose what is true based on your guts – what you are calling “common sense” and “common decency” without regard for the fact that when you chose something as true – that choices has consequences – that choice DENIES the truth of everything that conflicts with it.
But you do not accept that. and are therefore in denial about the real world.
“You were whining about my post.”
No, I noted that it was a non-sequitur.
That is an observation of fact and logic.
It is not a statement of emotion.
You did answer – of point and in error.
We go through that constantly.
We start with some actual argument about some relevant issue.
And you respond with fallacy and emotion, until the thread becomes entirely about you, or me, and has nothing at all to do with any relevant issue.
I would refer you to the Feinman quote I posted above
“You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities”
Facts, logic reason – not authorities, not emotions.
Your posts ALWAYS devolve to nonsense about either you or about me.
It is not about you.
It is not about me.
Nearly always when you start speculating about me – you are wrong.
I have periodically gotten sucked in to your idiotic appeals to your own authority.
I do not “feign to be the dullest knife” I am quite confident of my own intellect. I do not appeal to my own authority. Or at least not until you sucked me.
Any conclusion about our intelligence that is not rooted in the arguments themselves results in one of us coming off as a pompous ass. I will let you have that win.
You conflate the relentless pursuit of the truth with a :need to win”.
I will be happy to allow you to have the last word on nearly anything – If you are capable of ending with something that is true, or at least that is not obviously false and insulting.
Yup, to you Roby.
Hogburger’s comments/cartoons, etc, liberties (taking advantage of blogging space) takes away from our liberties, only he can’t, or won’t see it. Hogs like him only oink to please themselves and actually think their ramblings are read and are influencing people’s opinions. They don’t, and the “Sorry” whatever remark follows, and the fact that he actually gives you the “you are free to whatever”, when we can’t wade through all the inane posts, is ludicrous.
Don’t bother to respond Hogburger, cause I ain’t interested, (another favorite usage of his) in hogwash.
“Yup, to you Roby.
Hogburger’s comments/cartoons, etc, liberties (taking advantage of blogging space) takes away from our liberties, only he can’t, or won’t see it. Hogs like him only oink to please themselves and actually think their ramblings are read and are influencing people’s opinions. They don’t, and the “Sorry” whatever remark follows, and the fact that he actually gives you the “you are free to whatever”, when we can’t wade through all the inane posts, is ludicrous.
Don’t bother to respond Hogburger, cause I ain’t interested, (another favorite usage of his) in hogwash.”
Lots of ad hominem but nothing that is accurate.
Why do you presume to know what someone else thinks ?
Like Roby you seem to think that numbers have weight.
Read, don’t.
Ha, dduck all true, but I’ve found that playing with Dave beats getting mad. And he inadvertently produces humor, as when he took my response to Pat as a response to him and wanted to know why I want to get his wife into this?!?.
When life give one lemons, make lemonade.
State by state first half Growth for 2017.
With a few noteable exceptions – Red states have done well in 2017, and blue states have not.
MI, WV, and KY have done very well and that favors Trump – particularly MI.
Other swing states are more troubling.
With all the opinions expressed in this thread thus far, all the ideas introduced that there is not time to address, and those that have been discussed, the thing I wonder about the most is what Priscilla’s legs looked like in that dress, lol. Okay so I’m only partly kidding. This is how I’m wired. Do I have to change?
Ask your wife. Whatever she says, that is the answer.
And, I can add, that makes you a typical &*(%$ trump supporter, you %^$#* ☺
“And, I can add, that makes you a typical &*(%$ trump supporter, you %^$#* ☺”
Except that I did not vote for Trump which you already know – but seem completely unable to grasp.
Does the punctuated explitives make you feel better ?
Still not an argument.
Are you capable of discussing anything but you or me ?
Back to giving orders again – now you want to force my wife into this ?
Why is it you seem to think you get to direct everyone else’s lives ?
Regardless, I do not need to ask anyone about logic.
Fortunately for me, my wife likes my libidinous side! She is the only one who receives more than flirting from me! 34 years! 1984 to present!
Pat
I am glad your wife have a good relationship.
The saturday after Thanksgiving was the 34th aniversary of our first date.
But Roby’s post did not have anything to do with actual relationships or the topic.
He tried to make a stupid argument from a question, and then claim it was valid, and was trying to pretend that my wife the lawyer would be able to explain it to me.
I greatly respect my wife, she is brilliant, a brilliant lawyer, and very capable with logic.
But logic is not something I need her help with.
Though Roby does.
Dave, if you were to come to TNM itself and look at this thread you would understand where you left the rails. But, most likely you won”t and will continue to produce inadvertent humor. Which beats producing the same dry argument like a broken record so, carry on!
Roby
“Dave, if you were to come to TNM itself and look at this thread you would understand where you left the rails. But, most likely you won”t and will continue to produce inadvertent humor. Which beats producing the same dry argument like a broken record so, carry on!”
The thread left the rails long before you commented about wives.
Your
“Ask your wife. Whatever she says, that is the answer.”
Post was sent to me as a reply to dhlii.
There is good reason that Ron has requested that we note the person we are addressing.
And I would also suggest some context when we are replying.
A fair portion of the comments are not threaded correctly in the email notices.
That would be up to your employer and the women you flirt with.
Haha, Pat! Pretty good, apparently.
On the whole HR thing….A couple of years ago, I read a book about how men are increasingly fearful of being accused of sexual harassment, and it is actually hurting women in the workplace, because men are less likely to mentor young female colleagues. Also, the kind of networking that often results in job success is necessarily social in nature, and creates situations that could be open to misinterpretation.
It reminds me of a few months ago, when Mike Pence said that he never drinks alcohol at a business or social gathering unless his wife is present, and he never has dinner alone with a female colleague. A lot of feminists slammed him for that, saying that he was denying opportunities to women on his staff, by keeping them at arms length and refusing to socialize with them in the same way that he would socialize with male colleagues. And, that’s probably true. On the other hand, Pence is unlikely to be hit with sexual harassment allegations.
But, seriously. We can’t have it both ways, can we?
Priscilla, what Mike Pence said is much more prevalent than one might imagine. And I bet there are a lot of men in leadership positions with women in positions that are developing a career or are VP’s or others in roles just secondary to those men that are taking a second look at how they conduct their meetings and social activities outside the workplace.
For instance, a VP or CEO taking a business trip and needs an administrative assistant with him at the meetings. Does he take his female AA that provides support at the office with him, or does he find a male substitute that he can take?
It may not be right, but when its he said/she said, those wanting to protect a personal and business reputation now have to make different decisions than before.
Many things have unintended consequences.
I recall reading a study in the past year or so where the Family and Medical Leave act, actually reduced opportunities and wages for women.
We cannot have things both ways everywhere – but we can have things different ways in different places.
Pat your free to wonder all you want. Your free to check them out whenever with your eyes. If they are there to view, who says your not able to enjoy the view?
Just make sure the looking stops right there. If not, if your wife does not slap the poop out of you Priscilla most likely would and there would be no need for any further “inappropriate behavior” claims. Your two black eyes would give it away.
Now Schlumpo is trying to cast doubt ton his groping audio.
Can you believe this lying loser!
It’s refuted by the guy he was speaking to:
Anyone who is calling for the removal of other politicians who have been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple victims who isn’t calling for Groper-Boy to resign is a hypocrite.
How many times does one have to say he needs to resign before you accept they are being honest? If one says he should never have been elected because of his behavior, how many other comments does one have to make to meet your approval? Do we need to fill every post that Rick makes with 1200+ comments that Trump needs to resign?
“How many times does one have to say he needs to resign before you accept they are being honest? “
99 resigns on the Wall..
If one of those resigns happens to Fall..
98 resigns on the Wall..
And why do you think I’m directing that at you?
97 resigns on the Wall…
If one of those resigns happens to Fall..
96 resigns on the Wall..
Ron, I’m afraid that this is all we can expect. Endless links and tweets about how horriible things are under this president.
Last quarter’s economic growth was recently revised to 3.3%, highest in a decade, with the dollar holding steady. This is despite three devastating hurricanes. Business investment is slightly up, and with the corporate tax cut, we’re likely to see that increase as well.
ISIS has been driven from 99% of the territories that it has held. Our allies in the ME are beginning to form a coalition to stop Iran’s attempt to dominate the region. Former Trump opponent Lindsey Graham just yesterday on “Face the Nation” called Trump’s foreign policy team the best he has seen, and has praised Trump’s resolve in handling the NK crisis. Orrin Hatch, who has served under 7 presidents, of both parties, called Trump one of the best he has seen.
(But, by all means, let’s ignore Graham and Hatch and listen to Billy Bush, a lightweight entertainment figure and Trump hater, who has tried to destroy the president from the moment that Trump declared his candidacy. He was obviously the source for the Access Hollywood tape in the first place)
Lots of negative things happening as well. Trump is far from perfect. But Jay will cherry pick the stories that reinforce his belief that we are in living the worst of times, all because of Trump, and that, if only Hillary had won the election, we would be living in the best of times.
Jay is dead on in his comments on trump’s faults. He is also Quite repetitive and I understand why that annoys you and Ron. Jay is a big boy with a real life and will not hold it against me that I admitted that he is repetitive. I am sure he is aware of it himself. You might apply the same idea and admit to having noticed some small level of repetitiveness from your buddy Dave.
The list of omissions and corrections to the glorious picture you have painted of life under trump is too long for me to get into. With such a wondrous history of accomplishments you would think that he would not have just hit a new low of 33% approval on Gallup. There must be something else going on that Jay is on about. trumps near 60% disapproval cannot be blamed on “the left” since “the left” make up only 25% of the population. Somehow there is another 35% of Americans who are not the left who are seeing what Jay and I are are seeing and you are not seeing or not that you will admit to seeing.
“ Jay is a big boy with a real life and will not hold it against me that I admitted that he is repetitive. I am sure he is aware of it himself. ”
Did you ever hear a tune you liked that got trapped in your head, and you found yourself humming it over and over? That’s my tRUMP refrain, and I’m going to keep humming it.
Or think of my AntiSchlump repetitions like a sticker on a neighbor’s car: it’s there for the duration, and either ignore it, mimic it, or slap on your own annoying car sign.
There is a world of differences between repeating arguments that have not yet been falsified
and repeating insults.
Jay’s posts do not bother me.
I may choose to respond, but I am still OK with them.
In fact they make me happy – that I am not Jay.
“In fact they make me happy – that I am not Jay.”
Reciprocal at you double, Dave.
Trump’s approval ratings are and have been in the tank.
So everyone else’s.
Democrats, republicans, the media.
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King.
The approval rate of the democratic party is nearly 10 points lower than Trump.
I am happy with all of this.
I think skepticism of government is a great thing – something that I hope endures for a very long time.
With respect to Trump’s approval rating or 60% disapproval rating – that is meaningless.
If we chose our leader based on approval ratings right now Trump would be King – because that of the rest of our leaders is worse.
Trump one the election with approvate at this level.
He still beats Clinton head to head.
To paraphase churchill “Trump is the worst possible president, except all the others”
“Somehow there is another 35% of Americans who are not the left who are seeing what Jay and I are are seeing and you are not seeing or not that you will admit to seeing.”
It is you and Jay that are blind.
You do not grasp that you can drive everyone’s approval down to zero – that is nearly meaningless.
Little has changed since the election, and most of what has changed favors republicans and Trump.
Thus far Democrats have won only a single election that had any potential to signal a trend in their favor. Every other election either fell as expected or fell towards Trump/Republicans.
I am deeply disturbed that Moore is winning in AL. But that should scare the crap out of democrats. How is a peodophile not losing to anyone ?
As I understand it Jones is outspending Moore 10:1 and still losing.
Absolutely the right should not be celebrating that. It should hang its head in shame that Moore is a republican.
But democrats need to take a serious look at themselves.
What is wrong with your ideas when you can not defeat a peodophile ?
I would further note, that all this is occuring in an environment where democrats have every advantage. Trump is unpopular, the media pummel him relentlessly.
Even Fox is only kind by comparison.
And yet democrats are LESS popular than Trump.
You say you and Jay see something no one else does.
Sorry but wrong.
You do not see something everyone else does.
The left is self destructing.
Worse still the full court press of the last two years is unsustainable – or if it is, then the country is actually headed for civil war.
Rick and Ron are both getting angry, and they are starting to sound like Trump supporters.
“if only Hillary had won the election, we would be living in the best of times.”
If Hillary had won, those positives you mention, ISIS, the Economy, would have happened exactly the same. The momentum for those events to occur was already in place. I dare you to show anything president CrapHead did to accomplish either that would have been different under Clinton.
But I can point to numerous instances of the harm Divisive Donald has done to the nation. The hatred and lowering of basic standards.
The constant lying daily.
The antagonisms he’s created with long standing allies.
The refusal to separate himself from his business interests
The…
But why bother, you’ll rationalize the destructiveness, as usual.
Enjoy the continuing decline of American values, reputation, influence post tRUMP you will witness in the coming years.
“If Hillary had won, those positives you mention, ISIS”
Obama and Hillary had 8 years to deal with ISIS – they failed.
” the Economy,”
Throughout 2016 the economy was headed DOWN, the expectation was a recession in early 2017, After Trump won the market spiked, this recovery is NOT expected,
“The momentum for those events to occur was already in place.”
Absolute Bunk.
It does not take 8 years to recover from a recession.
While I do beleive and I think the evidence indicates we are in a policy change driven recovery.
It is till too early to state that for certain. Obama had rare 3 q’s of consecutive growth.
But no more. 4Q 2017 if it is 3% of above will be the first certain departure fromt he Obama economy.
“I dare you to show anything president CrapHead did to accomplish either that would have been different under Clinton.”
Clinton was NOT going to make peace with Saudi Arabai – therefore the mideast was going to remain a mess. Se was certainly not going to act favorably to Israel.
Has she won – we would NOT be having this Russia !!!!! Nonsense – she would be in bed with Putin – as she always was. Russia is only evil in the eyes of democrats right now because Hillary lost and Putin is being scape goated.
If Clinton was elected, we would not be chocking regulation throughout government we would be amplifying it. We would not be paring down department after department.
DAPL and KXL would still be on hold Gas prices would be higher.
“I can point to numerous instances of the harm Divisive Donald has done to the nation. The hatred and lowering of basic standards.
The constant lying daily.
The antagonisms he’s created with long standing allies.
The refusal to separate himself from his business interests
The…”
Most of those happened BEFORE Trump. In fact most of them are the consequence of Democrats.
Further, most have nothing to do with whether tomorow will be a better day than today.
“Enjoy the continuing decline of American values, reputation, influence post tRUMP you will witness in the coming years.”
This is the most bizarre argument.
First Why do I care what other nations think about America ?
Further to the extent I do care – why is it I am to presume that our reputation has declined ?
Apparently you are not paying attention. Most of those improvements Priscilla cited – such as the 3% growth are unique to the US. Grown in Germany is less than 1% and has not been above 2% for more than 1Q since the 70’s.
I can not find a single significant european country with growth above 1% or with growth that is not declining in 2017
Europes immigration issues make ours like trivial.
Generally Europes problems make ours look minor.
The left is worried that the US is moving towards Fasicm – which is laughable. The greatest authoritarian political danger by far int he US is from the left. There are more members of Antifa in Boston than Neo Nazi’s in the US.
But real ultra nationalists are arrising in Europe.
Listen, Roby and Jay, I knew that you would bash me for posting my last comment, because I had the temerity to say that Trump has accomplished some good things. ‘
And I knew that you would both ignore the fact that I followed a relatively brief and factual list of those good things with this comment: “Lots of negative things happening as well. Trump is far from perfect. ”
Did I paint a ” glorious picture of life under trump?” Nope, not at all. I pointed out that Trump has not been all bad, and I attempted to back that up with some evidence.
Would the positives that I mentioned have happened under Hillary? Possibly, but we’ll never know. I prefer to stay in the real world, where Hillary is NOT the president, and never will be.
Anyway, my point stands. Jay, I am glad to see that you recognize that your repetitive ranting and link-posting is similar to a car bumper sticker. I never actually had a bumper sticker on any of my cars, because….well, I don’t see the point of them.
But, carry on, if you must!
“Lots of negative things happening as well. Trump is far from perfect. ”
That was Powerful!! Now, refer back to the letter I sent Obama and compare tones and substance.
Your criticism of trump has about the same amount of oooomph that the criticisms our dear Russian lady friend has made of Russia or the USSR or Stalin or Putin. She occasionally (Very occasionally) says things like “I’m not saying that mistakes were not made”, and then goes back to telling us why Stalin had no choice but to…. and why Putin is the best Russian leader in her lifetime.
And, she is Russian, and from a very, very high level of Russian society, (which most of all she earned by hard work and being born a one in a million set of talents) so I can understand that she has been conditioned to strike only the mildest and most glancing blows to Russian history, leaders, and actions.
The day you rip into trump with a passion, with a vengeance, leaving marks behind I am going to have lost a bet with myself and will have to pay myself one pint of Ben and Jerry’s. Same goes for the day you have anything objective to vent about on the down side of our more local issue, Dave.
That loyalty of yours.
And there is the rub.
Trump is not perfect.
He is also not even close to Stalin, Mao, ….
In fact as bad as he is, he is preferable to Hillary, and even Obama or Bush,
Bill Clinton poses a Roy Moore problem for me. He was a pretty good president – particularly domestically. But he is atleast as Bad as Moore in character.
It is unlikely that Priscilla or I or Ron are going to rip into Trump with the Passion you desire – because we are rational enough to see that Trump is NOT Mao or Stalin.
You are not capable of grasping that he might not be worse than Hillary, much less that he is actually better than Obama or Bush.
He is NOT a better person. But he is a better president. Pretty much the same problem as Bill Clinton.
Carrying on..
Remove tRUMP.
Cruelly punish Republicans in elections for the next two decades.
Mercerlessly hound tRUMP and his family as they continue to hound the Clintons.
Make ‘trump’ into an adjective connoting Lying Pomposity.
Perpetually give him the 🖕when appearing in public for the remainder of his life.
I hope I live to see all this come to pass
“I hope I live to see all this come to pass”
You should be hoping that you do not see Trump re-elected which is far more likely
I keep telling you all that the longer the investigations in to Trump go the more dirt is found regarding the Obama administration.
If Trump asking Comey if he could find a way to cut Flynn slack is Obstruction of Justice
then what is 30 emails from the FBI AFTER the fact seeking to hunt down and silence whoever leaked the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting ?
Nunes is STILL waiting to here from DOJ FBI whether they made any payments to Fusion GPS or Steele regarding the Steele Dossier.
If the answer to that is NO – why has it taken more than 3 months ?
Nunes is STILL waiting to here from FBI DOJ whether the Steele Dossier was used to get FISA warrants.
IF the answer is NOT – …….
Nunes is still waiting for the FBI/DOJ to turn over Strzok’s 302’s and his texts.
WSJ is now questioning whether the entire Mueller investigation is not an effort to block inquiry into malfeasance of the FBI during the Obama administration.
In other words is the Special Counsell actually engaged in obstruction of Justice.
One of the problems when you use ridiculously stupid expansive definitions is that they work equally well against you.
Except for one thing. The President can not “obstruct justice” in directing the executive branch.
Nixon’s actions were obstruction – because he secured private payment for the watergate defendents in return for their silence.
There are now several editorials on WSJ advocating pardoning everybody and firing Mueller.
I think that is till unlikely but the WSJ is not Breitbart, and support for this is building.
Trump’s claim that the FBI’s reputation is in tatters is pretty accurate.
I can list numerous serious FBI failures that have nothing to do with Clinton or Trump.
Regardless, the differences betwen the FBI regarding Clinton and Trump is very damaging.
With Clinton the evidence was there for ATLEAST 18cfr793(f) charges against clinton and several staff, as well as destruction of evidence and sworn falsifications. That ignores the various other ares the FBI did not investigate of investigate well such as U1 corruption and Clinton Foundation Pay for Play.
Whatever damage you think is bein done to Trump is more than matched by that being done to DOJ/FBI and Mueller.
I would have absolutely zero problem with a thorough housecleaning.
Trump was elected to drain the swamp. It is time to start killing off the swamp creatures.
It is trivial to say that things would have been different under President hillary.
There are several policies of Trump’s that there is not a change in hell Clinton would have persued. Conversely that are policies Clinton would have that Trump will not ever.
Some things would have been similar – nothing would have happened legislatively.
I have zero doubt that the economic shifts are attributable to Trump.
The only question is whether they are durable.
Policy in the mideast and with Russia and China would have been radically different.
The left seems to forget that the Anti-Russia meme did not start until very late in the elections.
Obama was unwilling to sanction Russia for invading the Crimea, but suddenly felt compelled to raise sanctions after the election ?
Many many things would have been different.
“It is unlikely that Priscilla or I or Ron are going to rip into Trump with the Passion you desire – because we are rational enough to see that Trump is NOT Mao or Stalin.”
Ron already has ripped into trump with force, many times, quite to my satisfaction, which underlines the reasons that I see Ron in the light I do. Several times you have also actually criticized him forcefully. Considering how many of your most basic principles he has violated it ought happen more often, but your obsession with trumps enemies on the left overwhelms the assault trump has made on your principles.
Comparing trump to Mao or Stalin is absurd overkill, and I have never done so. Stalin and Ma were people, but they were people in specific situations that have no resemblance to our American one. I have said so many times.
Is there some commutative property of Trump I am not aware of ?
Ron and I are not in perfect agreement. But we have alot of common ground.
Further he is ration, and logical, and makes arguments, and in doing so sometimes alters my thinking.
Ron has also gone off on this Russa Collusion nonsense.
Regardless, I do not recall any serious conflict with Ron over Trump.
If Ron pissed all over Trump in a way I disagreed with – I would have responded.
Further, I think almost no one here thinks Trump is a “good person”.
But the anti-Trump garbage is insane – not because Trump does not deserve some oprobrium,
but because of the extent to which you, jay, and the left will go to, to get Trump, or to Trash him.
If Trump tweeted good afternoon instead of good morning, we would have a firestorm about Trump is a liar, and Trump is a doddering idiot, and he has dimensia, and see that is proof of Russian Collusion.
Trump can not exhale without it generating a stream of attacks on 10,000 subjects and a demand that he be impeached immediately.
I am not sure that any of us “like” Trump.
But some of us can try to be somewhat objective.
We can see him as a bad person and still see that the potential exists that he will be a good president. Far from a perfect one.
Bill Clinton was a bad person, he was also a goof president.
I want both, we are entitled to both.
But we have just had two good people who were bad presidents.
We desperately need a good president. We do not desperately need a good person.
Fundimentally I am interested in what Trump does, not what he says.
I find alot of his remarks annoying. At the same time as I have also noted the media as a whole is so thoroughly left corrupted that I think the media and Trump fully deserve each other.
I think Trumps “war on the media” is desparately needed.
It is a significant part of the damage to his approval rating.
Trump is violating Greener’s law – never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
In doing so he is dragging down his own approval
But Trump both in the election and elsewhere figured out something that those on the left have not yet grasped.
“Two men were walking through the woods when a large bear
walked out into the clearing no more than 50 feet in front of them.
The first man dropped his backpack and dug out a pair of running
shoes, then began to furiously attempt to lace them up as the bear
slowly approached them. The second man looked at the first,
confused, and said, “What are you doing? Running shoes aren’t
going to help, you can’t outrun that bear.” “I don’t need to,” said
the first man, “I just need to outrun you.””
Trump does not need a 51% approval rating.
He just needs to do better than the other guy.
Republicans, democrats, the press are all trusted LESS than Trump
You do not seem to grasp that as this fight continues, you occasionally score some minor points against Trump, but he is slowly destroying the credibility of the media, the left, and democrats.
I am reveling at much of this – the executive branch is being shredded.
Trump tweeted that the FBI reputation is in tatters.
Guess what – it is. A year ago the left was screaming for Comey’s head. Now he is your hero.
Though his approval is lower than Trumps.
Mueller too came into this with an excellent reputation – it is gone. Strzok is not the end of things – we already have more and more that is likely to slowly come down the pipeline.
When this started we did not know that the FBI/DOJ was hiding corruption in the U1 deal from congress – now not only do we know, but that Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein were all part of that.
Lynch had a good reputation before she became AG, now she will be remembered for obstructing justice to protect Clinton.
We now have the proof of a an attempted coverup of the meeting by DOJ and FBI.
It does not matter if Lynch/Clinton talked about grandchildren – if you beleive that.
It matters that they tried to cover it up.
It is the left that has been selling these ludicrously broad interpretations of the law.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
If telling comey that Flynn was a good guy is “obstruction of justice” then trying to hide a meeting between Clinton and Lynch is even more so.
Roby, you are correct that your criticism of Obama (I recall that it was after he made a brief, perfunctory statement about an American who was beheaded by ISIS, and then ran off to play golf) was emotional and powerful in that instance. And that my comment in this particular conversation did not address Trump’s flaws specifically, nor with any great emotion,
But, I think that you need to see things in context. I was responding to a comment about Jay posting repetitive and obsessive links about Trump being the worst president ever. “tRUMP, Devious Donald, Schlump” and so on and so on and so on….we get that dozens of times in every single thread. There is no discussion to be had with that sort of inanity.
So, in context, I was pointing out that Trump is likely not the worst president ever…nor is he the best.
I’m not generally given to emotional responses or rants, especially when discussing politics, and, at least here, in TNM threads, I am generally in the position of pointing out Trump’s positives, rather than his negatives, because…..well, that is what we do here ~we debate our differing opinions. At least most of us do. And, I am the resident “Trump defender”. My lot in life, so to speak.
“Same goes for the day you have anything objective to vent about on the down side of our more local issue, Dave.
That loyalty of yours.”
I don’t know why I would do that. It’s not “loyalty.” We’re not on teams, here, and I don’t know Dave any more than I know you or Ron or Pat or Jay ( I actually do know Rick, and I like him immensely, yet we’ve disagreed on many occasions…cordially, as friends do ) I understand that Dave gets under your skin, and I’ve been clear that I find Jay’s lack of seriousness and flippancy perpetually annoying. But I wouldn’t hesitate to disagree with Dave or to agree with Jay if a point of agreement/disagreement arose.
Outside of Jay and Roby the rest of us are capable of disagreeing vigorously without getting personal.
While I am upset with myself about allowing Roby to twist every exchange with him such that it becomes either about him or about me. God for bid we should discuss issues,
It may be more common for things between Roby and I to turn personal, but I am not alone in having a debate with Roby turn personal. That is all Roby does, is make everything Personal.
Jay is atleast for the time being simpler – everything is Trump! Argh, and if you disagree or see more nuance, well you are stupid.
“But I wouldn’t hesitate to disagree with Dave or to agree with Jay if a point of agreement/disagreement arose.”
The point is that you (and Ron) are aggravated by Jay’s repetitiveness and seem to believe it does some harm here beyond merely bugging you. Dave’s repetitiveness dwarfs Jays but you never note it and defend him, he is being unfairly treated.
There Are sides, yes, teams. They sometimes shift a bit in interesting ways, but to deny that they exist is, er, denialism.
If you want to chance to disagree with Dave you can start by having a look at his libertarian “I don’t see what is so bad about that” comments today on my youngest daughter being casually offered a job as whore at 30,000 feet.
So we are annoyed at Jay ?
Has someone told him to “Go away” ?
BTW it is not that Jay is repetitive, it is that there is little to no substance.
Regardless, Jay posts, you post, sometimes you annoy.
So what ?
Does anyone here doubt that if this was your blog Roby, that I would have been blocked long ago ?
Do you think that Ron, or Priscilla or I would block you or Jay ?
If I offer you butter pecan Ice Cream and you do not want it – is that a sin ? a crime ?
Why is any offer that you are free to accept or reject as you please, that comes with things you want and things you don’t in some way inherently evil or wrong ?
Or is this just because what is offered involves sex ?
You seem to think that even being offered something is force that prevents you from saying no.
How many years can one wait to file a complaint?
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/arts/music/james-levine-sexual-misconduct-met-opera.html
This one dates back to the 80’s.
I saw that article and had the same thought..
Are we going to be chastised for wetting our diapers as infants too?
There is no time limit at all with respect to an employer – just as there is not one with respect to voters and Franken or Moore.
The statute of limitations on child sex abuse varies from state to state, but in some cased is 50 years.
The specific instance here is complex. If I am reading the article and working the timeline correctly, the “boy” was 15 When Levine held his hand suggestively.
But was 16 when the first actual genital contact occured.
One would have to check what the age of consent was in Illinois in 1980’s
While this conduct bothers me – I am not especially happy with 40 year old men having sex with late teen boys, the kid was near or past the age of consent and no force is alleged.
I see this as creepy, but not a crime.
“I see this as creepy, but not a crime”
You and President DisgustingHuman seem to be on the same wavelength once again. He just officially and STRONGLY endorsed Moore. A CREEPY Republican who chased teen girls TRUMPS any Democrat running against a Republican. Politics over probity:
Trump tweeted early Monday that “Democrats refusal to give even one vote for massive Tax Cuts is why we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama.”
Jay, from my ” disgusting Moore” position, I think the best outcome would be for Moore to win, the Senate taking the position that there is more than sufficient evidence that supports “actions detrimental to the senate” and refuse to seat him and let Kay Ivey (R) Alabama governor to appoint a replacement until the next regularly scheduled election. That blocks any left wing Shumer “block anything GOP” democrat from taking office and keeps Moore out of the senate.
Wont happen, but thats what I would prefer.
Correct, won’t happen.
Allegations against Moore include rape and statutory rape.
I was addressing Levine not Moore.
If I were in Alabama I would have to decide between voting for Jones and staying home.
Moore is not an option. I am not near the same page as Trump.
I think Trump should have stayed out of Alabama – for oh, so many reasons.
Though there is a big difference between my view that Trump does not always know when to say nothing, or how to say what he says, and your obviously false presumption that he is a retarded dolt – and somehow concurrently deviously taking over the world.
“Democrats refusal to give even one vote for massive Tax Cuts is why we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama.”
Moore is actually sufficiently bad that even that argument is wrong.
But Trump makes a point. Republicans during the Obama administration took a strong stance against democratic policies. They provided no votes and democrats had to accomplish whatever they sought on their own. While I think the choice to go their own way was more mutual – through the obama administration Democrats were unwilling to cede a millimeter of ground to secure any Republican votes.
We are now seeing the same in reverse, with democrats in the role of obstructionists.
The question is, is obstructionism inherently wrong ?
I do not think it is. I supported must republican obstruction, and I support some democratic obstruction now.
Whether obstruction is a good thing or a bad thing depends on what is being obstructed.
There are many ways to measure that. One is the state of the economy.
Through out 8 years Obama averaged 1.8% growth.
Trump has less than a year, the sample is far from sufficiently significant yet.
But the results are 3% growth. If Trump/Republicans sustain that – then democrats should not be obstructing and do not deserve to be elected.
“If I were in Alabama I would have to decide between voting for Jones and staying home.”
Good reply.
“But the results are 3% growth. If Trump/Republicans sustain that – then democrats should not be obstructing and do not deserve to be elected.”
Foolish reply. Do you believe in lucky charms?
What is foolish about it ?
Republicans during the obama administration opposed democrats whose policies resulted in poor growth, growing income inequality and reduced growth in standard of living particularly for those near the bottom.
Whether you like it or not, the political consequences of that obstruction were Republicans slowly taking over the house, the sentate the presidency and a large portion of the state governments.
Democrats are opposing Trump. If the actual consequences of a Trump presidency are the same as those of Obama – democrats will likely reverse their losses during the obama administration.
If however as is the case thus far Trump is more successful at improving the lives of americans,
then democrats will be further punished for opposition.
The argument is nothing more than an expansion on Democrat James Carvilles winning formula for Bill Clinton – “it is the economy stupid.”
If Nixon had a strong economy during watergate, he would have served out his 2nd term.
Instead he made far worse the mess that Johnson left him.
Nixon is primarily responsible for the economic disaster the toppled Carter,
Conversely Reagan’s “teflon” reputation mostly reflected the 5% growth during his presidency.
Clinton survived his scandals more because of the robust economy than anything else.
If elected, he’ll be seated.
Maybe some grumbling here and there from Republicans.
But that’s all.
I’m POSITIVE thats the way it will/would go down.
We are a morally corrupt nation.
Politicians follow the flow.
Bye Bye American Pie
Hello Cess Pool Stew.p
Unfortunately. I agree with you.
Except that it should be absolutely crystal clear to you at this moment that repugnant perversion is not a uniquely Republican problem.
That you continue to pretend so, merely demonstrates your inability to see the world as it is.
Ron, I agree that that would be the best outcome. Unfortunately, neither party will expel a member anymore. The Democrats never would, now the GOP is right there with them.
If character no longer matters, we are doomed to these kinds of situations for the foreseeable future.
I have to say that I’m moving to your position on political parties. I’ve always believed that the two party system is best, and I still do. But these two parties make it a hard position to defend!
Ken White aka “popehat” is a former US assistant attorney, and a respected lawyer and legal blogger – particularly on white collar crime and first amendment issues.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/937524103916937216
Popehat is one of the best Twitter feeds. I believe that even Jay has posted his stuff.
I have to say, I’m bummed that the FBI has turned out to be so messed up. I was always a big Elliot Ness fan ~ of course, I later found out that Ness was never actually in the FBI, but I thought he was. The whole G-Man “fidelity, bravery, integrity” image and all that.
Oh well, the best heroes are often flawed.
Dave,
Congrats on the 34th anniversary of your first date with your wife. It is not original of me to say that some of the most poignant and satisfying experiences in life can only happen after two people have been intimate for years and years and years. It is a shame that along the way my wife had to drive me nuts with some of her habits, such as kicking off her shoes and leaving them all over the house despite adequate closet space! (There is no sarcasm or hidden meanings in my previous sentences. The previous sentences are merely a friendly greeting, a way to acknowledge that you are a human being, and an attempt by me to find some commonality with you. Greetings like this can often aid subsequent communication. There is no need to debate or argue with my conversational “greeting”. Please do not tell me that I am free to leave my wife if her habits bother me, but that I have no right to use force to coerce my wife to put away her shoes! OK, so my immediately previous sentence was a mild jab at you and your commenting style.)
I would like to debate with you. I agree with many of your points, and sometimes (SOMETIMES) when I disagree with you I nonetheless appreciate the…”boldness” of your logic. You have an intelligent mind and a wealth of knowledge that goes wide and deep (I mean that; I’m being straightforward here) but you have some communication and language difficulties (still being straightforward here) and that is why I cannot afford to debate with you. I’ll give you a recent example:
I said:
“The concept of coercion/force is very foundational to your thinking. You must agree with that!”
You responded:
“I rarely use “coercion” – because “force or the threat of force” is a narrower defintion fo coercion than most people use.
Regardless, force is NOT foundational to my thinking.
It is foundational to Government. if we are dealing with force we are dealing with govenrment, and if we are dealing with government we are dealing with force. ”
You misunderstood. I didn’t say that you advocated the use of force or coercion. I was merely saying that you often (very, very, very, VERY often) end up talking about the use of force in your diatribes. Because you refer to the use of force so often (so, so, SO often) it is therefore “foundational” to your thinking. You should have agreed with my statement and argued about something else, but you gave me a “Rain Man” response. Your misunderstandings like this are all over the place at TNM. This is one of the reasons I cannot afford to debate with you. Your frequent misunderstandings of communication and language make it too time-consuming to debate with you. I believe you are liked and welcomed here at TNM for various reasons, but I cannot afford the time to debate with you.
Another reason is your volume of response. Other posters here are absolutely correct when they refer to your verbosity and volume as a smokescreen or evasive maneuvers. It is like an advanced fighter jets that releases a bunch of hot debris to divert and avoid a heat-seeking missile. When there is a legitimate challenge to one of your thoughts or comments, you will release a deluge of related, barely related, and unrelated information.
Here is a basic template (indefinite article “a” template, not “the” template) of how dialogue and debate should proceed:
Person #1 says “A, B, and C.”
Person #2 says, “I hear you saying A, B, and C. I see what you mean by B.” (This validates the other person as a human being with a brain.) “I understand what you are saying about A and C, but I disagree. Here is the angle by which I disagree with your A, and here are two brief examples.”
Note that person #2 held back from elaborating on his disagreement with C for the sake of courteous brevity.
Here is an example of how you debate:
Person #1 says “A, B, and C.”
You say:
You are wrong about A. Here is something I say is an absolute fact. And here is D and G and G, part 2. You are totally wrong about B, and here is F, T, U, V, and M, and part 2 of V, and part 3a of the 2nd part of M. And your opinion has no basis in fact and is illogical. And here is a table of data with no connection to our discussion.
My example above is symbolic, of course.
This is my opinion and some of the reasons I cannot afford to debate with your communication and language difficulties. Of course you are free to post and I am free to ignore you when I want to ignore you. Sorry if this opinion comes across to you as hurtful, but your responses often come across as affronts–arrogant, closed-minded affronts. I know you are somewhere “on the spectrum,” so to speak, and that is OK. I’m not condemning you for that. This is not intended to be hurtful. Mostly I do not wish my future ignoring of your comments to be misunderstood by you or others as me conceding to you. And it’s a shame because I do agree with many of your points.
Youza! dduck just fell flat out in love with you and wants to know if you can post a picture of your legs.
haha. Even though Rick’s topic this time is Sexual Misconduct, I’d better not start sexting pictures here!
Pat,
I am not going to comment on your marriage beyond noting that my 34 years has covered a universe. There have been incredibly bad parts and incredibly good parts, and times that each of us have wanted to kill the one person we could not live without.
I try not to judge the relations of others.
My “if you do not like it you can choose otherwise” is important to everything.
It is nearly always true, we usually know it is true. But sometimes we need to hear it – because it puts things in context. My life with my wife is nothing like what I would have imagined.
There are myriads of annoying “shoes all over the floor” – I do not understand how I got here, and I know she has her own long list. But the thought of leaving tears my soul apart.
I have found my soul mate and I do not ever want to live without her.
I hope that everyone here is as fortunate.
Dave,
Nice, realistic words regarding your relationship with your wife.
“My life with my wife is nothing like what I would have imagined.”
Yes, this is an interesting aspect of living life–how reality differs from what we imagine. When my wife and I were young, we built a life based on how we both had imagined things should be (me very idealistic) and fortunately there was enough overlap in the two “Venn Diagram circles” of what we imagined that it was charming and good. Then came the kids, and life kicked us around a bit, but still we had fun with it and it was predominantly good. Now the new empty nest phase is a difficult adjustment for both of us and a time to re-evaluate. Lately more than ever “my life is nothing like what I would have imagined”.
“Happily ever after is not a fairy tale. It’s a choice.”
Pat;
In my life I have moved through myriads of ideological positions so radically different from where I am not.
Roby and others here are intent on psychoanalyzing me and do so badly.
I am not about “winning” or having the last word. I am about finding the truth.
I am in the midst of rereading JS Mill’s essay on liberty – which is incredibly appropriate given the debate on free speech today. Though I want to know how it is that we are once again debating free speach. I thought we had settled that.
Regardless, an argument that Mills makes over and over is that even if you have found the truth, you can not know that unless you test it. That free speach is absolutely critical because the truth slowly dies unless it is constantly challenged by the very best counter arguments.
Roby is correct that I am looking to do battle over ideas – because that is how we test them, that is how we find the truth.
My job and HIS, is to make the best strongest most vigorous case for our position, because the result is meaningless otherwise.
I am well prepared to argue my side. To change my mind you must demonstrate a real flaw in my position, or present a compelling argument that is not in contradiction with something that is fundamental and unchallenged.
That does not happen often. But it does happen, and it has happened here at TNM.
You in fact identified a relatively clear flaw in one argument I was making several years ago, and I have had to revise that.
With respect to your example:
You said “force is foundational to my thinking”
Maybe I could have responded more succinctly.
Force is not FOUNDATIONAL to my thinking.
It is however an extremely common theme in my posts.
Alot of the debate here is about the role of government.
Often that debate is implicitly about government and I deliberately seek to make it explict.
And one of the reasons for that is
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmccluresmagazine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F06%2Fgeorge-washington-quote-government-force-jesus-socialism-libertarianism.png&f=1
Foundational does not mean “use very very often”.
Force is the difference between voluntary cooperation and government.
It is “foundational” with respect to govenrment.
but that is merely because if we remove force from government the result is not called government.
Liberty, freedom, free will are foundational – not merely for me – but within philosophy,
Force and its uses are secondary or dependent values.
Dave,
I think you are misunderstanding here again, but we’ll remedy it.
Foundational: denoting an underlying basis or principle; fundamental
The concept of “force,” i.e. not using force against another individual or group, is foundational to Libertarian thinking.
Because in your posts here at TNM you frequently write about force and coercion (we don’t need to hair split between those terms at the moment), i.e. you talk about “government coercion” and “government using force” and people not having the right to force others to do X and Y…because of the frequency of your reference to not using force, it belies or reveals that the concept of force (used or not used) is fundamental or foundational to your thought processes, beliefs, to YOU.
So, you are correct that frequency doesn’t equal foundational, and foundational is not defined as frequent, but the frequency (repetition) of your discussion of using force or not using force is evidence that the concept of force is foundational (fundamental) to your thinking. That doesn’t mean that it’s the single most fundamental concept, nor does it mean that there aren’t other fundamental concepts to your thinking. But I am saying that it is one of the tenets of your thinking.
If you still do not agree, we can skip it and move on.
I am not misundertanding you.
I am continuing to address this because you seem to be sincerely trying to understand me and my values – how force can be used is absolutely an important value.
I actually try hard to limit certain portions of my vocabularly in debates to use important terms with clear meanings, and to avoid synonyms that might have nuanced differences in meaning.
A great deal of the problems in progressivism are the consequence of eliding conflicts by allowing meaning to be maleable.
The distinction between values and principles is important. I keep asking Roby for principles, and he returns values – if I am lucky or more likely ambiguous platitudes.
I value spinach, and ice cream. A value is something important to us. But we weigh values against each other and make compromises all the time. What we value, is not the source of morality, ethics, law, our concepts of right and wrong.
Principles are below values – often values derive from principles. But not always. regardless values are maleable and we make tradeoffs between values easily. Values are typically where compromise is easy.
I am not quite prepared to say principles are immutable. But they are close.
It is probably correct to say that the use of force is a principle of mine. It is also probably correct to say that it is a principle of western and possibly all civilization.
BUT The foundational principle of libertarianism is Free Will.
Libertarian views on force DERIVE from the importance of liberty.
This is important because free will is also core to morality, and philosophy (not just libertarian).
Free will gets you to force and alot of other places – it is foundational.
Force does not take you as far. It is a branch, not the trunk. It is not doundational.
Obviously the relationship is tight. the primary mean of abridging liberty is the use of force.
The use of force almost always violates free will and almost all violations of free will are force.
Still Force is not the foundational value.
There is alot of use of force that I do not speak about at all. Driving a nail is force, launching a rocket is force. Uses of force that have no political implications at all abound.
It is when force is used to violate Free Will that I start speaking.
Anyway, I will absolutely agree with you that force is very important to me. I should think it was to everyone.
But foundations are what everything else builds upon.
Force is not the foundation, Free Will is. All my thoughts on Force are specifically because of its effects on Free Will.
Further I MOSTLY argue a specific branch of libertarian thought rooted in the NAP.
Non agression principle – though I have a more philosophical view of the NAP – it has myriads of expressions including Kants catagorical imperative which sounds far less libertarain, and is actually broader than the NAP.
You are correct I discuss force constantly here at TNM.
I worked with some carpenters over a summer, and we constantly discussed nail guns.
That did not make nailguns foundational to carpentry.
Though it did mean they were important.
I discuss force, because it is the bright line between government and not government.
The concept of force is fundimental to government.
it is “foundational” to my thinking – ABOUT GOVERNMENT.
Nor am I alone there – it is foundational to thousands of years of thinking about government.
But there are other branches of libertarian thought. J.S. Mill was a utilitarian.
I may constantly borrow utilitarian ideas and arguments, but ultimately I am not utilitarian.
There are also randian objectivists – inherently aristotelian. Again I borrow from them but I am not an objectivist,
Further the largest portion of libertarians are not doctinaire.
They are just people who feel more freedom less government – probably good,
more government less freedom – probably bad.
Ron appears to fit that group. I used to fit that group, before that I was a 60’s liberal. raised in a goldwater/friedman conservative family – that mostly did not discuss politics.
But we did discuss the ways government was making the family business harder and how that not only screwed us, but usually those working for us.
Pat
You are absolutely correct about miscommunications.
But I think you are completely wrong about the source of the problem.
The reasons for a great deal of miscommunication here is that we misuse words constantly.
That is fine when we are talking about fiction or poetry.
In science the definitions of terms is absolutely critical.
E=Mc^2 only works if each of the terms is defined precisely and used narrowly.
I have also asserted that when we are discussion government – there is that force thing again.
we need to be precise. While I usually phrase that as “because we are using force”.
If you prefer to make it foundational, that would be “because we are constraining free wll”.
Alot of my posts start to sound rote, and boring – because I deliberately avoid to a large extent using synonyms for critical terms.
As I noted – I avoid the use of the term coercion. There is nothing wrong with the word.
But if I say “force or the threat of force” there is less confusion.
What you are calling communication and language difficulties are a deliberate choice.
Further they are very important.
Much of the conflict with me is because in the context of “constraining freedom” I am not going to tolerate ambiguity.
I actively seek to constrain arguments involving the restraint of free will to clear terms.
I will openly rewrite the arguments others make to remove efforts to obfuscate that they are infringements on liberty.
For much the same reasons and more that we do not tolerate ambiguity in science.
It sounds like you are saying that you want to use words precisely. That’s good; we should try. But it also sounds like you have slightly unrealistic ideas about words and language. Words are fluid things with shadows and grey areas depending on usage by different people in different areas. Some words are just about hopelessly ambiguous. Some words rely on the context around them to give them their meaning.
Simple example:
1. I’m flying to another country.
2. I’m going to spend some quiet time in the country.
“Country” in usage #1 is a political distinction.
“Country” in usage #2 is a rural area as opposed to an urban or suburban area.
Neither definition above is the “official” definition. It depends on the usage and the context.
This is just scratching the proverbial surface. I consider myself a linguist and a wordsmith, and now I’m going to also be a bastard and say that you have a “below average” ability to infer the meaning of people’s words from the context in which they are used. I’ve seen that here with you over and over, again and again, and I know others who do it. I think you try to compensate for this with super-intense de-construction and examination of words, sentences, and ideas. I’ll be less of a bastard and say that there are some intellectual benefits to what you do (your super intense de-construction and examination) but that it can be annoying for those of us to whom “inference” regarding the subtleties of words comes more naturally. I could say that better, but I don’t have time. Now I am sounding arrogant because I am being brutally honest (and also fully realizing other folks may not agree with me).
1. Look at that poor bastard with no coat. (Bastard meaning unfortunate individual)
2. In earlier centuries it was considered shameful to be a bastard. (Bastard meaning a child born out of wedlock.)
3. The boss won’t let me go home early. What a bastard! (Bastard meaning callous, unfriendly a–hole or prick)
“It sounds like you are saying that you want to use words precisely.”
Only in the context of the use of force.
In a previous post I noted that force is a branch, not the trunk of the tree.
The use of force is the specific branch of the tree sprouting from free will, that we must take great care about the words we use.
Ambiguity, nuance, word play, are all perfectly fine – in poetry, art, music, and myriads of other things. But not where we are making decisions about the use of force.
I have no problem with the rest of your post.
In science, mathmatics, we are very careful about the meaning of words. All the issues you cite are deliberately driven out of those fields because they make meaningful thought and
communication in those areas impossible.
Our use of words in the context of the use of force is the same.
We can be as maleable as we please discussing freedom – until we start discussing the use of force to limit it. From that point on we must be clear. Just as in science boil, and melt have single and specific meanings, while they have many meanings elsewhere.
When we say the water boiled – we do not mean it got angry.
When we say the ice melted – we do not mean it fell in love.
In science we are talking about the change from liquid to gas, or solid to liquid,
we need precision because that allows us to think precisely about that.
There are many additional physical attributes and values that derive from our precision with respect to melting and boiling, and those attributes tell us things only tangentially related to melting and boiling.
Regardless, we do not wish to be using force ambigiously.
If I have ever noted that some post here has been “hurtful” it has merely been to ensnare those on the left in their own stupid logic that presumes that something that is hurtful is also false.
I have thick skin. Despite Roby and Jay’s constant projection that I am some giant mass of heaving emotions. I am not easily hurt and if something is true that it might hurt is my problem.
“but your responses often come across as affronts–arrogant, closed-minded affronts”
To some extent also a choice.
If you have read Orwell on writing one of his rules is:
Get rid of unnecessary mush words. I think, I believe, in my opinion are all redundant and unnecessarily weaken what you say.
Past that if the objective is to test something, the best arguments should be presented as forcefully as possible – that is not arrogant. I expect the same out of every one else.
I also expect their strongest counters, and they should expect mine.
Further, I have been making most of these arguments for a long time.
They have stood up and been refined, it is reasonable for me to have confidence in them.
Dave,
I like your thick skin and what I have previously referred to as your “boldness”. Yes, if thinkers are to approach Truth and truths, they can’t be too sensitive and squeamish. OK. I’ll say this is one of your strengths.
Pat
“I know you are somewhere “on the spectrum,” so to speak,”
I specifically want to address this – as it continues to come up at times here.
My guess is that DD’s “fatberger”, and “hogberger” remarks are some word play with “aspbergers”
Netflix has a series “atypical” that I think is fantastic.
Many friends even family have noted that some aspects of my personality resemble that of the protagonist who is autistic.
And TNM is not the first place someone has questioned whether I am autistic.
I do not care if this is true. I am who I am. If that is autistic or aspergers, or “on the spectrum” I am fine with that.
Ultimately that is a question of style. I posted the feinberg quote that science is not about authority, that works all ways. An argument is true whether made by Hitler or Stalin or an idiot savant, or someone with autism.
That said I have actually been tested several times for autism, and aspergers is just a particular high functioning form. I test as mid spectrum – i.e. normal.
While I have some personality and behavioral traits that are strong in people with autism.
I have several traits that are never found with people with autism.
One of those is actually evidenced by Sam the protagonist in Atypical.
For Sam every discussion loops back to antarctica everything about life must be analyszed in the context of antarctica
I know that to some here, my world seems to revolve around “force”,
but I can assure you it does not.
TNM is one of the venues in which I discuss that issue.
My wife and children will assure you that I can as relentlessly discuss myriads of other topics.
The specific characteristic being address is a personality trait called “systemitization”.
It is extremely strong in libertarians, and is practically the defining personality trait for libertarians
While it is extremely weak in people “on the spectrum”.
Regardless, the fact that I do not have autism, or aspergers does not mean that I am not aware of the fact that I have some traits that are commonly found with people who do.
I do get irritated by the autism and aspergers references,
Primarily because they are wrong and they are an effort to deflect.
I use TNM as a means of learning.
Since I can only rarely get a good argument. I am working on other skills.
I have been working for sometime on my ability to address something quickly.
When I need to I am quite capable of succinct high quality writing. But it can take an entire day to get something down to a few paragraphs.
I am not spending that kind of time on TNM.
Most of what I post I write very fast, and I do not go back and revise it – and that is evident from the posts. I am actually working to improve that but the goal is to get more succinct and better organized without additional time invested.
I am also using Roby. He constantly transforms every exchange into one about him, or about me. I am deliberately, explicitly using him to try to learn techniques for dealing with that.
Thus far I am not doing very well.
Dave,
I appreciate your honesty regarding autism, Asperger’s, etc. Those are only labels, merely labels, and labels are inherently inaccurate. As a rule, I don’t like labels. That’s why I said “on the spectrum” and “so to speak”. We could say that everyone on Earth is “on the spectrum” or somewhere along the line.
Yes, you show some of the traits of whatever you want to call the various combinations of those traits .
In its perhaps simplest form, it is just being atypical.
Yes, we are who we are. We play the cards we are dealt. It seems you are making conscious efforts with various techniques, etc. Partly now I feel “bad” or guilty, but not so much to stop being honest. But since the references to such labels annoys you, I will be respectful. I also have some theories about why you piss me off, and Roby and others.
For me, it is because some of your tendencies violate something that I operate on, which we might call “the man code”. The “man code” is an unwritten code that is learned and is not being passed down to many of the male millennials these days. Some of millennials are not aware of it ( due to a combination of divorced families, cultural shifts via TV and immigration, etc.,). Some men distance themselves from it (the man code) for various reasons, but I still largely operate by the man code.
One of the tenets of the man code is that, except in certain dire circumstances, you don’t tell another man that he is wrong and you are right. Doing so is a violation on several levels, partly because men know the relative nature of things, that what is good for one person might not be good for another, and what is good one moment is subject to change in the next moment, etc., and partly because the insult of insisting one is right to another man greatly supersedes whatever point was in question. Telling another man that he is wrong is a challenge, fighting words.
Good close friends can insult their friends in fun, and to the extreme for more fun. Strangers and acquaintances cannot.
This might seem to some to be incongruous with debate, but it’s not. It’s why people speak in less than absolute terms: “I think you are incorrect when you say…” and “I believe x and y” and “It seems illogical” et cetera. Speaking in absolutes, as if what one is saying is the absolute, irrefutable truth, is a violation and an unwelcome challenge. There’s more that I haven’t fleshed out, but I’ve got to run.
Pat
You should not feel guilty.
I know I am not “normal”. I have never been. It has never been an option, I am very comfortable with who I am.
I do not honestly beleive in “normal”. I do not know anyone who is “normal”.
Recognition that there is no such thing as “normal” is one significant factor in my being libertarain.
Both the left and the right are premised that there is a “normal” – though they have different ideas of what that is, and that outside of that they have the right to “punish” people.
Only libertarians allow people to decide who they want to be and try to acheive that
AND to actually accept people as they are.
With respect to “on the spectrum.”
I expected to test high functioning just above aspergers. Mild Autism is apparently extremely common in highly intelligent people.
I tested mid spectrum – “normal”, on numerous tests.
But I think I arrived there by an unusally route.
On some attributes of autism I scored very very high and on others very very low.
The result is in the middle.
At the same time it really isn’t, because I am not “average” on pretty much anything.
I will also note that I post here somewhat different than in person.
While I do have real world difficutly OCCASIONALLY because I take something litterally that was not intended litterally – I do not have a problem with abstraction.
While I have never had anything but an appreciation for music. I have written lots of poetry, and have a pretty good art portfolio – as well as being a registered architect and a good building designer. I have also designed furniture – which my father in law built and is in my home.
I am not Frank Llyod Wright (who I admire) or Pablo Picasso, But I am good enough to have won awards for creative endeavors as a teen. But that is not what I pursued as a carreer.
The point is not to say I am this incredibly talented person. Better than average is not “incredibly tallented”. But it is to note that I am creative, expressive and capable of all kinds of non-literal thinking.
At the same time 40 years of working in computing amplifies the literal aspects of your personality. Computers are ABSOLUTELY Litteral, and you must think like they do to program them.
All that said I DELIBERATELY take some things posted here more literal than I know they were intended (I also sometimes mistakenly take things litterlally).
I do so usually to make a point. I do not care if when you were talking about government you did not “literally” mean ue force against people and possibly kill them.
“literally” that is what using government to accomplish something means.
And I am not going to allow that to be elided just because you did not “literally” mean that.
I am going to start by saying I am straight, white, and male.
But no one in my life would ever have accused me of being “the man”.
I was bullied alot as a kid. I spent lots of time entertaining myself.
I built elaborate treehouses in the woods, and battleshit/rafts on the creek and played on them alone.
In school I was the geek – though a bizarre one. The entire school knew I was the smartest person in the building, but until middle school I got B’s and C’s in everything except science.
I just did not try hard.
In middle school I became friends with other misfits, and started to thrive,
I wrestled in middle school and was top of my weight class – tall and light,
possibly because if other kids get off the buss to beat you up often enough, you get strong enough to keep them away. by HS I was sort of popular. Many of the kids who previously beat me up if they did not want to be my friends atleast wanted to be aquantances. I graduated near the top of my class.
But I have never been into any “man thing”. I have almost no experience with male bonding.
I was the statistician on the football team for 4 years. and run Cross Country as a senior,
but that is still pretty far to the periphery.
I am not trying to attack your values, just noting that they are not Mine.
Further my family was not “male dominated” My parents were a team.
They were both entrepenuers, they both had their own businesses.
Entrepenuership is in my genes so to speak.
My mother was more dominant than my father, but my father was smarter.
Regardless, my childhood was wonderfull despite my compliants, but absolutely nothing in it would lead me towards a “man code”.
There is a vast difference between the self reliance and individualism that my upbringing fostered, and any kind of traditional male values.
That is not judgement, just who I am.
Mostly I do not insult people, but I have no problems insulting bad ideas.
Roby in particular is completely unable to distinguish. Though I think that is a common left trait.
If you say “socialism is evil” to a socialist they here – “you hate me”.
I am not stupid – I know the implication is there, but in my view there is still a difference between saying “you are stupid” and “these beliefs are stupid” to someone who beleives them.
You choose what you believe, you do not mostly choose who you are.
While I am not a “Man man”, and I am “highly aggreeable” most of the time.
I enjoy intellectual debate. It is boxing for the mind. I am going to make my argument in the best way I possibly can relentlessly, I am going to pummel you, and I expect exactly the same in return.
You have you “man code”, mine is different, if you beleive something strongly but you will not stand up for what you beleive. If you will not argue it forcefully, if you retreat and cry foul, then you are not my kind of “man” That I see as weak.
While I would prefer to confront people who are challenging, even if you are not good at making your arguments – if you stand up and defend what you beleive – I respect that.
In my own experince that IS how my values are changed or atleast what triggers changing them.
I have zero problems going head to head with the top aithorities in their field.
I have had email exchanges or actual debates with people like Lawrence Lessig, Lawrence Tribe, Richard Epstein, Robert Reich. …. I am not intimidated, and I have found that the best people in their field respond well and enjoy the exchange, and are very approachable.
I appreciate what you are saying about “i beleive”.
But ultimately I am with orwell, and I am not changing. It is unnescary and inefficient.
Further as I wrote I have a different conception of what “being a man” is.
I am a boxer in the intellectual space.
Of course all metaphors have problems and Roby keeps trying to claim this is about winning, dominating, ….
That is complex. I keep refering to JS Mill “on libertty” as i am rereading. it.
You test ideas, values, principles in intellectual conflict.
While the obejctive is partly to win, it is also to find the right answer.
The right answer is that which when given the best argument by the best people to make that argument prevails.
The objective is not for “me” to win, but for the best argument to win, but it must do so in the most rigorous test. That means I must defend my view as forcefully as I can, but that the opposing view must also receive its most forceful exposition.
I also means that I am processing my own and the opposing arguments, and that where mine are found wanting I must change.
That does not happen often – particularly as I get older, because I have likely encountered most of the best counter arguments already.
But it does happen, even here. I have revised my thinking, not necescrily on bigger issues, but certainly on smaller ones,
And I specifically recall doing so as a resutl of a point you made some time ago.
Pat, on “the man code” that was freaking brilliant. There are so many ways of trying to express the same thing. I have used many words inefficiently to try to say what you just nailed. It made me smile.
Pat;
This also seems to come up constantly – though usually driven by Roby.
I do not understand the fixation on winning, losing, conceding, arrogance, ….
I have a giant poster in my home
“you have not converted someone, just because you have silenced them”.
I assume that you agree – when you agree.
I assume when you do not comment that you do not have something you wish to say.
That is not the same as agreement.
Regardless, what drives me is the quest for the answers.
This also addresses an issue that is coming to the fore in our politics today, and its relevant to TNM.
While I would prefer a world in which we are not killing each other over ideological differences,
short of violence, I do not inherently think that vigorous debate and strong disagreement is evil.
I have repeatedly noted compromise is a tool – among other reasons because the goal – at least mine is NOT homogenous agreement – that is closer to my idea of hell.
In many instances I seek conflict – that is how we test ideas and values and principles.
I do not want Roby, or you or Jay to agree with me about everything.
I want you to come back with your best arguments particularly about the things you believe fervently.
I think this is also a part of much of the misunderstanding about markets.
For the left in a competitive market – there is ultimately a winner and a loser.
Capitalism and markets create winners and losers the cycle repeats and the winners win more and the losers lose more.
In the real world that is both rare and unsustainable. Competition produces winners and losers.
But the losers are not vanquished, partly the learn from the winners, and partly they go back and refine their own ideas, and they return to the conflict, and often the next time they prevail.
The end result is NOT an ever widening gap between winners and losers. It is continuous improvement that EVERYONE benefits from.
One of the most annoying things about the left for me, is that they refuse to learn.
How after the experiences of the 20th century is anyone still arguing for socialism in any form ?
Learning is difficult – and the right has its own problems returning to long disproven nonsense.
but far less so than the left.
Today we are fighting over whether christian bakers can be forced to bake cakes for guy weddings. Not whether it is OK for gay people to marry. When I was younger they were not allowed to exist, much less marry.
Anyway, I am not here to “win” or demonstrate personal superiority.
At times I have tried to use my own life experiences to demonstrate how I learned something.
At the same time I have made many mistakes – here. It is often hard to find the appropriate line.
Appeals to authority provoke responses that are appeals to authority.
One persons claims of personal authority seem to demand demonstrating your own personal superior qualifications in the same or related areas.
The determining factor in an argument should not be the credentials of those making the argument. But it is really hard not to respond in kind when you feel you can win at the other persons game.
Brief illustration of the man code:
Let’s say a man is having difficulty positioning a jack underneath his car on the side of the road. Another man approaching on foot to help has several options available, in keeping with the “man code”…
He can say, “Hey, do you mind if I give you a hand?”
He can say, “Excuse me. I think I see a way to make that easier…
According to the man code, he cannot say, “You’re doing that wrong.”
If another man said that to me, I would tell him to f-off. I would rather struggle with something for another hour than allow another man to walk onto the scene and have the audacity to violate the man code with insult.
lol
In the past, other commenters have objected to me being so…”direct” with dhlii Dave. They came to Dave’s defense and gave me the cold shoulder. Perhaps these other commenters have thought it “small” of me to be so direct and honest with Deluge Dave, and it made the other commenters uncomfortable. (It’s funny how it’s more accepted to just hurl a few insults. To go into detail like I do to call someone out, on the other hand, is apparently cringe-worthy to some.)
To me, it’s like this:
If a person in the room disrupts the flow of conversation, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. If they persist in disrupting the flow of conversation, I will tell them to get in line and knock it off.
If a blind, wheel-chair bound, or otherwise handicapped person disrupts the flow of conversation, I will give that person several benefits of several doubts, but then if it persists I will tell them to get in line and knock it off.
Another option is for me to just leave the room, which I have done before, because of Deluge Dave. Maybe if Dave were limited somehow. He has some damn good insights. He keeps threads alive sometimes. He can be the ultimate foil character to prompt people’s opinion, to prompt responses. But he dominates and disrupts the flow, no? I don’t know. It’s frustrating. My solution would be this: Dave, stay here. You are valued. But shut the fuck up sometimes and let a variety of others commenters control the flow of the thread. And when you do post, summarize and limit yourself.
He’s wired not to shut the fuck up.
He can’t help himself. It’s like telling tRUMP to stop tweeting crap.
Never gonna happen.
You may be correct. He may not be able to stfu. But apparently in my opinion it still needed to be said! Lol.
He has moderated himself slightly in the past. I witnessed it. But then the string broke and the plant snapped back to it’s original orientation.
Or like expecting that you will have something but insult to offer.
PR, agree with your two comments, above.
dhii: I am tying you to the ” fatberg”, I am not qualified, or inclined to do psychological analysis.
https://dangerousminds.net/comments/disgusting_blob_the_size_of_an_airliner_removed
Pat;
I recall having past debates with you on some issues.
I do not recall a conflict where I thought you were “unfair” whatever that is.
Or where I needed “defended”.
“It’s funny how it’s more accepted to just hurl a few insults. To go into detail like I do to call someone out, on the other hand, is apparently cringe-worthy to some”
Arguments stand on their merits. If they do not hold up to scrutiny – facts, logic reason, then they must be rejected.
I take hurling insults as a sign that you do not have an argument.
With respect to your analogy.
The internet is not a room. In an actual room only so many conversations can occur currently,
One person speaking actually reduces the opportunity for others to do so.
When we invite someone to lecture – we grasp that hecklers must be silenced – otherwise the right of the speaker to speak and more importantly the right of those who came to listen are violated.
In the real world there are physical constraints. Some of those constraints inform our laws, and some inform our norms and standards of politeness.
Where those limitations do not exist – those laws and norms are anachronistic
The cost of my posts to TNM is entirely born by me. If I posted 1000 times what I do now, that would have no effect on the rights and freedoms of others here.
You asked for a change – but the change is meaningless.
There is no “flow” but what each of use decide.
If I go one direction and no one follows – I can continue forever – alone.
If the rest of you go a direction, I can join or not.
The problem you are trying to solve – does not exist. Nothing is preventing you from doing whatever you would do if I was not present.
You are trying to pretend that something that is practically limitless is severely limited.
Pat.
I have touched on the last part of your post in other posts.
I have talked about costs – there is no cost to you or anyone else here to my posts.
But there is a high cost to me, to your suggestion.
You say “post summaries” – as if it is easier to summarize than to stream consciousness.
It is not.
I do not write for a living, but real concise accurate technical writing is one part of what I do for a living. I have been published. I have written technical works for business, documentation, reports, studies, In the past 5 years I have had to produce letters and memo’s on matters that had legal consequences.
Getting 3 pages into 3 paragraphs is incredibly difficult and time consuming.
I beleive that I am actually pretty good at it.
Regardless, I get paid very well when I do, and no one is paying me to post here,
and my goals here are not to improve those skills.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/12/politico_touts_chelsea_clinton_as_possible_senate_candidate_in_arkansas.html
GOOD GOD!!! May heaven call me home before the American Entitled Royal Family is seated in congress once again
The American Thinker article regarding Chelsea Clinton mentions “name recognition” and “Clinton Brand”. In general, Clintons aside, are more and more citizens moving past such superficial qualifications to back a person for office? Maybe we will actually start looking at people’s past accomplishments, the results they’ve achieved, and real details of plans and ideas for solutions? One can hope.
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24294325_1822862731106184_5592996174182116315_n.jpg?oh=17ba4371f0f60ccd5f801c6a9b5d61a7&oe=5A8EA016
Haha!
On the Rutgers campus, there’s a main road called Hoes Lane….it was rerouted at some point in the past, and there is a residual part of the old road that no longer connects to the main one. They renamed it “Old Hoes Lane.”
I occasionally need to give directions to people who will end up on one or both of those roads. Never fails to amuse.
Let’s see…sexual misconduct…misconduct…campaign misconduct…Russian interference…Russian-American relations!
Roby, you had some first hand glimpses and insights regarding Russian-American relations. Any news, musings, or predictions on that front from you?
I like to be a bottom-up reporter of current American civilization, including economic activity. I have had some business recently in Southwest New Jersey, particularly Logan Township, Gloucester County where there is the Pureland Industrial Complex, one of the largest industrial complexes in the world, with 150 tenants in 100 buildings just in the 3,000 acre complex proper (not to mention the industry surrounding it). It is basically across the Delaware River from Philadelphia. Companies include Mercedez-Benz, Lockheed Martin, Home Depot, hh gregg, Rite-Aid, and Amazon. I am reporting that things there are booming a bit. Another hotel was built right next to two existing hotels and all three hotels are doing well with engineers from Germany, oil rig crews from Texas, etc. etc.
I’m not a fan of Amazon (putting smaller brick and mortar operations out of business and clogging our highways with delivery trucks), but Amazon is building some of the longest buildings there that I have ever seen.
I’d rather see booming industry than some of the depressed rust-belt towns I sometimes see. This has been man-on-the-street Pat Riot reporting from Southwest New Jersey.
Oh, and people working at those companies there should be careful what they say in the workplace, lest they be accused of sexual harassment and jeopardize their jobs. Almost forgot to tie it back in!
I don’t know that I have anything new to add since the last you heard of me Pat. Russian intelligence agencies play a traditionally nasty level of dirty tricks, we all know many of the examples, the polonium assassination, the pcb poisoning of the Ukrainian presidential candidate who was not in their pocket, killings inside Russia of opposition figures, journalists or others who cross some line, jailings of protesters and opposition figures. The indiscriminate shooting from the roof in Kiev that backfired and set off the Ukrainian revolt against putin’s puppet. The arming of the rabble army that shot down that airliner. The “secret war” in Ukraine, the persecution of war widows who have spoken up in their grief at losing their sons in a military action that does not officially exist. On and on, very, very dark, putin’s methods, Soviet methods, KGB methods. If you go online and do a brief search you can come up with a longer list of the flavor of retaliations and attacks via the Secret services and military and some other shadowy groups putin may or may not control. That they have a set of internet trolls, hackers, and international mischief makers is obvious. That putin controls the press slightly less than Brezhnev did is also obvious and TV is the main tool for programming the naturally very patriotic Russian public.
The average Russian is someone I can relate to, admire, like, have dinner with, play music with, talk about life with, drink, laugh. Just not politics; they have long been trained to be good patriots and follow the Russian leader.
Watching all that prior to this last election I never would have guessed it would work here in America, that putin would team up with assange, that any conservatives or republicans at all would be willing to play the role of 21st century useful idiots. I no longer have the idea that I understand American political parties or partisans at all and what they are willing to be persuaded of in the name of politics. I am shell shocked, in disbelief, horrified. That hasn’t changed much in the last year.
Roby;
You are likely better informed of the internal workings of Putin’s Russia, regardless there is no reason to disagree with anything you say there. I doubt any of us think that Russia is radically different than it was under communism.
But after you leave russia you go entirely off the rails.
Sorry Roby, Wikileaks is not and never has been controlled by Russia.
Absolutely Assange tries to use Russia, and Russia tries to use Assange,
Clinton tried to use Russia, and Russia tried to use Clinton – does that make Clinton a Russian mole.
Next you go to the idiotic step of presuming Russia successfully gamed the system here.
Please!!!! This is the greatest peice of garbage in this entire Trump Russia meme.
Thus far the only actual evidence of Russian colaboration with a US politician is with CLINTON!!!!.
Whether it is the U1 deal, or Fusion GPS and the Steele Dossier,
What you have come up with regarding Trump is I beleive two completely meaningless low level contacts that yeided nothing, and at most prove there was not high level contact – because if there was there would be no reason to Talk to Natalia or whatever.
Further as is now coming out Fusion GPS is not only actually in bed with Russia, but Fusion has been feeding the media i.e. PAYING journalists to run stories that Russia wants for years.
It also appears that Fusion is the source for many of the leaks over the past year
There are also strong indications that the Natalia overture to the Trump campaign was an attempt to entrap the Trump campaign. Natalia met with Simpson at Fusion immediately before and immediately after her Trump tower Meeting. Natialia has worked closely with Fusion for years.
Even some of the leaks slightly beneficial to Trump appear to have come from Fusion – though they appear to have been deliberately intended to expose bad stories through friendly media to properly spin than and also to forestall Nunes from subpeoning Fusions Bank records.
Just to be clear it is no secret that Fusion has been paying journalists for years to run stories that its clients – including the DNC and Russia want made public.
So we have Fusion GPS – which really is working for Russia AND really is working for the DNC, and the Clinton campaign. That does not bother you ?
Lets step a bit away from Fusion to the social media nonsense.
Ignoring the stupidity of the premise that social media is somehow a magical form of brain washing that has the ability to create an irressistable urge to vote for Trump and lick the creme out of Orea’s. the actual facts still are that the mniniscule investment Russia put into social media was mostly issue rather than candidate targeted and favored clinton issues significantly over Trump issues.
I beleive the estimate is that of the something like 100K of money spent PURPOTEDLY by Russians on Facebook adds, about 6.5K directly or indirectly benefited trump.
I honestly do not care if the russians spent a billion and all of it favored Trump.
If voters are so stupid that they’re vote is that easily altered – give up. Self government is impossible. But the real fact is the only people who beleive people are that gullible are people who lost an election and do not understand that they lost because of WHO THEY ARE, not a consequence of some slight of hand.
Roby,
I too am in disbelif, shell shocked and horrified.
I can not comprehend that you and so many on the left buy this collapsing bunch of bunk that does nothing more but make the Obama administration FBI,. DOJ, Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein stink and yet you can not understand quite simple things like:
Clinton and the obama administration LIED about Benghazi.
The Lied about IRSgate,
The Lied about Clintons mail server, and Clinton was “grossly negligent” in handling clasified information.
Please explain to me how Flynn’s minor innaccuracies in an unrecorded interview with the FBI over and exchnage with Kislyak that accomplished part of what Trump asked him too, and did not cover ground he was not to go into, is more serious than dumping thousands of classified documents onto the internet – including Drone targeting information ?
Sorry I forgot more news of the day.
PRIOR to the election – according to documents on wikileaks from the Podesta email hack (not the DNC hack). The Clinton campaign was contacted by the Obama white house to begin meeting to coordinate contacts and introductions to foreign leaders during the transition.
Hopefully the same communications were sent to the campaigns of Trump, Stein, and Johnson, ortherwise it would appear that the Obama administration was showing preference regarding candidates. Lool no one doubts that Obama would have prefered Clinton – and he campaigned for her. But in his role as president, and his staff in their role as federal employees are forbidden to ACT in favor of one candidate.
But this has two points – though the 2nd is made many many many times over.
The Logan act is not only unconstitutional but NO ONE pays any attention to it.
Obama was touring europe meeting with world leaders during his transition.
While we now find out there was a spat going on between the Obama lame duck and the Trump transition over foreign policy – the Trump people told the Obama people in the strongest terms they were allowed, NOT to engage in new foreign policy initiatives that were at odds with the platform Trump had run on. That included normalizing relations with Russia and Isreal.
The Obama administration was meanwhile rushing to complete as much as possible in foreign policy and elsewhere to do exactly that – to Lock Trump into positions at odds with his own campaign promises.
I am hard pressed to recall a single president that has ever acted so hostilely to their successor.
Even today Obama is in Europe trashing Trump.
Please tell me what former president has criticized a sitting president publicly ?
I am sorry Roby but the conduct of the left absolutely appalls me.
You have no honor, you have no shame.
“I doubt any of us think that Russia is radically different than it was under communism.”
It is a far, far different country from the communist Soviet Union and from the perspective of human rights and freedom, not to mention the availability of consumer goods and food a far better one, repressive as it still is. The changes in Russia have been beyond imagination. Unfortunately they just did not remove one person rule and the KBG apparatus and methods, which did seem to be a possibility at one heady point.
“But after you leave russia you go entirely off the rails.
Sorry Roby, Wikileaks is not and never has been controlled by Russia.”
I never said that Wikileaks is controlled by Russia. Not nearly. This, as usual, is your reading comprehension problem.
“Absolutely Assange tries to use Russia, and Russia tries to use Assange,”
Exactly as I see it. Nothing I have said should indicate otherwise unless I have used language vaguely somewhere.
As to the remainder of your post, its off the rails. You are so entirely in the weeds on the topic of Mueller and Russian interference that I just stop reading when you go there, much better uses for my time exist.
The moment you cede wikileaks is not controlled by Russia your argument goes down the tubes as does Russia Collusion.
But I am going to go further
Putin tries to use Assange, Assange tries to use Putin.
Putin tries to use Clinton, Clinton tries to use Putin.
Putin Tries to use Obama, Obama tries to use Putin.
Putin tries to use Trump, Trump tries to use Putin.
I think all of us understand all of this.
Sometimes such efforts fail, some times they succeed, sometimes one side gets the upper hand.
Regardless, you can pretend as you wish to beleive that the dominos fell a specific way in the 2016 election.
What you do not have is Putin as a omnipotent cosmic player in control of the board.
In certain aspects of this he got incredibly lucky – not by getting Trump elected – he had nothing to do with that. But in persuading the left that the election process is corrupt and rigged.
His 100K of Facebook adds paid dividends beyond bitcoin.
The left is eating itself.
Finally, there is no crime in the above, and there is nothing to be done for the future.
You seem to beleive you are entitled to pick the winners and losers in the game of international intrigue and manipulation.
Read, don’t read,. Don’t care.
The simplified version is you are not likely to “get Trump”,.
But the consequences of the effort for the left are disasterous and possibly long lasting.
There are myriads of attacks on Mueller today.
I do not think that Trump is yet at the point he can actually do all of what is recommended – but he is close.
But it does not matter. Mueller and Trump are engaged in a high stakes version of “Chicken”.
And Mueller has several problems.
Trump is not blinking, he has nothing to lose.
Mueller has everything to lose, and is already losing it.
There are increasing calls for Trump to clean house at DOJ/FBI,
There are increasing calls for Trump to appont an SC to go after, Clinton or now the Obama Administration.
Andrew McCarthy who has repeatedly said you can not have an SC if you do not have a crime,
You can not have an SC conduct a counter intelligence investigation and use it to bring criminal charges (it is unconstitutional).
Anyway McCarthy is esentially saying “F#$k it, what good for the goose is good for the gander.”
The Mueller investigation is political and corrupt and the remedy is to start a paralell political investigation of the investigation, and the dodge to do so is to investigate the Iran Deal because the corrupt players in the Trump/Russia investigation are also the key players in Iran.
Let’s see how Strzok and Rosensteain and Comey like predawn raids ?
Lets see if they can endure a 2hr unrecorded interview without saying something that the interviewer can call a lie ?
I think McCarthy is wrong. Just because the left goes rogue does not mean we should join them.
I actually want the rule of law back.
But the fact that you have someone of McCarthy’s reputation and integraty prepared to say “F#$k it” if the rules have changed so be it screw over the left using their own rules is huge.
BTW he is far from alone.
The Flynn indictment did some damage to Trump.
But it has damaged Mueller too.
Most people can not even understand what it is that Flynn purportedly lied about.
Further Flynn is well respected. He is a 3 star general, and Mueller was leveraging his son.
Further the absence of all the allegations regarding Flynn in the plea says to most of us, those “stories” were just that – garbage.
The norm on a plea deal is that Mueller has agreed not to prosecute Flynn or likely his son on anything. . In return Flynn must cooperate. but that means tell the truth, not tell what Mueller wants to here. Further he must cooperate on the issues that are part of the plea.
The plea is about communications between the incoming administration and the Russian ambassador.
Mostly Trump has been playing nice with Flynn since the indictment.
Flynn has good reason to beleive if he can toe a fine line between Mueller and Trump he will be pardoned eventually.
Most of us also have a serious problem with going after someone for purportedly lying to the FBI when there is no underlying crime.
Yes, Mueller has increased the threat to Trump.
At the same time he is actually looking ever weaker.
According to BAE data Michigan is positively booming right now.
US industry has never been in an actual decline and is growing even fast today.
But Industrial JOBS have been declining for decades and will continue to do so.
Amazon is primarily destructive of Walmart, Target, Sears, KMart.
There effect on small businesses is positive.
I would also note that Amazon can NOT clogg the highways with delivery trucks.
Unless the goods you buy are manufactured in your community – they are going to be shipped to you one way or another.
It does nto change much if they are trucked to an Amazon distribution center near you and from their delivered to your door, or Trucked to Walmart and then carried to your door in your car.
If you want less deliveries – you need to consume less.
About 100 or so comments ago, Dave pointed out that the hypothetical scenario I drew would be, under current law, illegal. I agree, as I understand it, with perhaps some exceptions in the state of Nevada, one cannot create in this country a legal contract for sexual favors. Ideally, I believe there should be a legal mechanism where those who freely want to exchange favors for wealth ought to be allowed to do so. However, I now believe I am shifting away from advocating such a change, as I believe that the potential for abuse of such change would likely outweigh the benefits. Wow, I am becoming more in tune with my own desire to impose, with force of government, my moral views upon others. I want it to remain illegal for a landlord to try to negotiate a “services” cost to my daughter if she is late on her rent. That negotiation might occur wither it is legal or not, but I want the law to at least impede it. Somewhat on the same line of thinking, how many believe it is good to have laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors? Many teens get their hands on alcohol anyway, but my bet is that if all alcohol/under age laws were removed, we might have even more nonconsensual sexual relations of underage teens and adolescents than we already have. I have no way of proving that, just my guess. I may not be any more authoritarian today than I was, but I feel more conscious of it now. Hurray for authoritarianism! Mike Hatcher
Ha! Anyone who had the desire to put an End once and for all to American libertarianism could make a worse start than hiring Dave to Sell his brand of libertarianism, starting on late night TV, then books, talk shows an extreme libertarian channel.
Or you could just read John Stuart Mill “essay on liberty”
What I read tonight noted that views expressed in opposition to the establishment will always be attacked as “dangerous, and extreme” while those of the establishment will never be portrayed as extreme or dangerous no matter how bad they are.
I would suggest reading “on liberty”. You will probably think you are reading me.
Mill BTW is estimated to have the 5th highest IQ of any human ever – at 200. exceded by Liebenits, Swendsford, De Vinci and Geothe.
My IQ is not near 200. It is also not near 130.
Mike, If your daughter wants to exchange sexual favors in return for rent, I know you would cringe at the thought, but why should that be illegal? If she does this freely and makes the decision herself, I see nothing that should stop her.
I come to this decision based on the moral values in the country today, not 100 years ago when values were imposed on people based on much more conservative religious beliefs. Why should it be fine for a woman to meet a man, have sex with him freely and not get anything of value in return, but she can not meet this same individual and charge him for that same experience?
I think some people find this objectionable when they relate prostitution to pimps controlling the activities of their girls and forcing any woman wanting to practice that trade within the pimps teritory. That is not allowing freedom for the woman and is coercing her through force to make him money off her body and that should not be legal.
My view is there is much more chance of abuse of women if it is illegal. One, you may have a pimp or madam running an illegal business that has control of their women, they can threaten the women with any number of actions and they can force them to work when they may not want to work.
And by the way, who is going to arrest a woman trading sex for rent?
I’ll bet they can arrest a man for suggesting it. And that is a good thing.
Someone my youngest daughter met last year was talking to her and found out that she loves to travel and fly. He offered her a job as a stewardess on his own small private air service that caters to the rich. Guess what turned out to be part of her perspective duties?
Two girls I knew in high school were so sexually exuberant that they later went into the business. Both are long dead, industry lifestyle related.
Guess what I would do to the guy who offered my daughter that job if I could find him? Better for him that the law would deal with him.
Roby, yes they might be able to arrest him. But who is enforcing that? What I said was if she wants to trade something of value for equal value and she does it willingly and is not forced to make that decision, then that should be her freedom to do so.
As for the girls you reference, what are the details of their death? Drugs, murder, or something medical. Where they in a life style where prostitution supported other dangerious activities?
In places where prostitution is legal, most live a very high class lifestyle that most people would envy. And many of those places have health regulations to insure that STD’s are held to a minimum, unlike casual one night stands many sexually active women are involved with.
Unlike Dave who I suspect would not support any government oversight, I think health regulations would need to be in place to insure as nuch as possible safe sex.
Now if women enjoy intercourse, why should your beliefs make them give it away?
No I do not support any regulations.
We have tried myriads of different forms of legalization and the best outcomes are from full legalizations and no regulation.
There is data on this. Even health regulations just result in a black market.
And the black market remains more dangerous than no regulation at all.
Ron, I understand the desire to regulate.
Where there is a serious risk of actual harm – and some health matters have that, then that is one area in which I could support regulations – if they worked, but the evidence is that they do not.
One of the major problems with many regulations is that those regulation quite often do have real measurable positive benefits.
I think it is likely possible to find a person who is alive to day who would possible have been dead but for PPACA. I do not think there are many, but I do not doubt that are some.
But there are also people who are dead who would be alive, but they are harder to find.
The evidence of unseen effects are often very hard to find.
Our best evidence is in changes of trends.
PPACA did not produce positive changes in life expectance trends – that inherently means that for every life it may have saved, it somewhere else killed someone.
We MIGHT be able to find and meet the person saved. it is rare we can even identify the person killed. But the absence of a change in trends means that they existed.
We know with prostitution the less regulated it is the safer it is.
I have a similar problem with the war on drugs.
Sen Schumer took the FBI off of investigations into Russian hacking and financial crimes that were costing americans $32B per year to go after Silk Road.
Ultimately they got Ross Ulbrecht thouigh there is some evidence that they violated alot of laws to do so, and that there are major problems with the conviction.
Regardless, it is likely he is spending the rest of his life in jail.
Total sales on SilkRoad/year $2B and only part of that was drugs.
Much was made during the trial that people were dying as a result of Silk Road provided drugs.
yet extremely carefully conducted research studies have found that SR reduced the drug overdoes deaths in the US by about 6%.
How ?
Because the quality of drugs you get from a back alley illegal drug deal are volatile.
Today there is a big problem with fentinnyl and carfeninyl.
Most of us can not understand why anyone would take anything so dangerous – these are many times more dangerous than heroin.
Inquiring into why – it turns out that heroin adicts do not want fentinyl and carfentinyl.
Both are produced in labs, they have much shorter and less mellow highs.
But they are cheaper, and drug dealers subsititue or cut heroin with them to save money.
On silk Road there is an amazon like reputation system.
Sell dangerous poor quality drugs and you get bad reviews.
Just like ebay there is a strong drive towards quality and safety.
Regulation does nto actually make us safer.
To be clear where there is a real safety issue, there is no libertarian ideological impediment to regulation. Government is there to protect our rights. Serious safety risks that are not a free choice by all involved are inside the scope of what government can do.
But the data is these do not work.
You can be arrested for suggesting it – prositution is illegal.
The question we are asking is should it be.
Was force used against your youngest daughter ? Was she free to say no ?
I would expect that my daughter would say no. But I do not think it needs to be illegal to ask.
You seem to think that your daughter should have a choice that was not and likely will not be offered to her.
If I offer you a million dollars to swim in a septic tank for an hour, you can say yes and get a million dollars, you can say no and get nothing. But you can not say – you offered me a million dollars so you owe me a million dollars and I am not swimining in a septic tank because “ew” asking someone to do that should be illegal.
The lifestyle is dangerous because it is illegal. There is plenty of data on that. The risk declines very rapidly as it is decriminalized and is extremely low when it is completely legal and unregulated.
Further rapes and domestic violence descrease by about 13%.
Even if legal prositution resulting in increasing deaths of prositutes, the NET effect would be a decrease in violence.
Why would you do something to the guy who made an offer to your daughter ?
Why is it you seem to respond to free choices with violence ?
Ron, I agree if adults want to sell services to adults, so be it. But when, if ever, does freedom that men have to pressure young women to have sex with them start imposing on the freedom of the recipient of that pressure? I maintain the venue makes huge difference, if people want to hit on each other on dating sites, chat rooms, clubs, fine. But young people are often the most financially strapped, and attractive young women that are barraged by a deluge of offers daily, I think should be protected from having to negotiate out of pressure from landlords, professors, and employers. They are free to resist those pressures, I believe is an unfair burden on them. Heck, I see multiple people on this site acting like it is so unbearable to put up with one guy deluging the site with many long comments, yet do they think it is ok for young women to have to put up with sexual propositions when they are just trying to get an apartment, get their car fixed, or get a job? There is a time and place for everything, employment and housing is not a time for sexual negotiations unless the person is actively offering said services.
Mike Hatcher
Mike, I understand your thoughts. However, I question if any law is really stopping much of these practices
So because young people are financially strapped they should not be offered opportunities to make lots of money that they are free to turn down ?
With respect to landlords, lets try some scenarios. Maybe you can explain to me what “pressure” is ?
Landlord advertises apartment – 20% under market rent, but requires a BJ once a month.
Other apartments are available at market rates.
Ew ? Sure. Should it be illegal ? What is the pressure ? If you do not accept this better than normal deal, you will have to ? Pay market price ?
Tenant is late on rent and about to be evicted.
Landlord says – give me a BJ and I will give you another month to come up with the rent.
Ew ? Sure. Should it be illegal ? What is the pressure ? If you do not accept this you get evicted. If you make it illegal to offer you get evicted.
Can you provide me a scenario that does not involve actual force, that leaves everyone with free choice – if not the choices they hope for that you can explain to me why it should be illegal ?
Separately I have been a landlord since 2008. I have evicted tenants, I have had tenants move out during the night without paying.
I have never asked a tenant for sexual favors. I have never heard of a real world landlord doing so. I have never had a tenant offer. And I would not accept. My tame excursions outside the sexual norms are consendual, occur in private, with my wife – or in my fantasy’s.
I am really pretty dull for someone who wants to see prostitution and drugs legalized.
But I support the freedom of everyone else to be as perverted as the want – consensually.
“Now if women enjoy intercourse, why should your beliefs make them give it away?”
As Winston Churchill said, I love a good cigar, but I sometimes take it out of my mouth! (in response to a man who had 18 kids which he explained by saying that he really loved his wife).
Ron, My jaw is still hanging down. I did not expect a Guccione impression from you! As I said above somewhere, I have given up completely on believing that I understand what people will do or believe. The world is rapidly become a Salvadore Dali painting. Maybe I am in a coma and I just dream this shit. Conservatives and putin/assange. Ron and the sexual revolution.
Having some &*^%$ casually offer my daughter a path into the world of ass for gas (she told me about that very off handedly long after, was NOT interested) was an eye opener. Someone who is down on their luck or in a state of lostness might fall for it. And then? Some glamourous world? For how long? At what cost?
For every NBA player there are 1000 wanabees who got nowhere. For every glamorous sex star there are a thousand who fell way short and its not pretty. Even the middle let alone old age of many who did make it is not pretty.
And if she had taken the offer, ah, my daughter so proud, making old rich guys happy at 30000 feet. Maybe she could have a stellar career become a trophy wife, like Melania. I’d be so proud. What did you do today dear? Oh I _____ and _____ for my old man. Great, that’s wonderful. I did the brakes on the subaru.
No, I am NOT a libertarian. And talking to libertarians makes me want to wash my ears out with soap.
Roby, the key to this is your daughter made the right decision in your eyes, and mine also. But prostitution is legal, its just called escort services. You arrange an evening and most everyone knows where it end up after a sizable payment.
The numbers racket was illegal, police spent millions trying to stop it and finally the states said, if we cant fight them, we will join them. LOTTERY!
States have found they can not fight the cartels against marijuana, so they are legalizing it. Cannabis oil is being used to control, if not stop seizures in the young to the old. Only the feds who are bought and paid for by big pharma is trying to enforce laws against it.
Sorry, but your daughter got propositioned and no law stopped that from happening. Your daughter made a good decision. Other may make a different decision, just like people who bought thousand of illegal bets in the numbers racket or bought marijuana or cannabis oil.
By the way, off the suject, but interesting article.
http://abc13.com/health/for-children-with-epilepsy-marijuana-can-be-a-lifeline/2732702/
Of all the horrible rotten things that could happen to my daughter,
I think having someones tongue forced down her throat or hand into her crotch or grabbing her breast or pinching her ass without her permission are all far worse than being asked if she would like a well paid job traveling the world that includes sexual benefits for the boss.
How is that worse than being asked if she would climb into a septic tank and dig the shit out ?
“Someone who is down on their luck or in a state of lostness might fall for it. And then? Some glamourous world? For how long? At what cost?”
There are still alot of very poor and poorly treated prositutes.
But the advent of the internet has dramatically changed things,
There are blogs by and for prostitutes. There are a significant number of young college age women into prostitution. Very many are doing quite well. There is a woman who put herself through laws school and after completing it found that she was making more than the partners int he firm she interveiwed at and decided to delay her law career.
As I noted in the “sex trafficing” rant, there is aparently a booming business of young adult korean women coming to the US for a couple of years, earning alot of money and returning home to get married.
I have no doubt there are bad stories to.
But the worst problems that many “craiglist” prostitutes in the US have is getting “outed” or getting arrested, as a record really screws up you life. It can even make getting credit difficult.
So are you saying that the NBA should be criminalized for giving false hope to the many thousands who will never make 10M/yr ?
You also seem to beleive that because you do not want some choice for yourself or your daughter, that everyone should be deprived of that choice.
I do not want my daughter to go into prostitution either.
I also do not want her to go into garbage collection,
factory work,
sewer cleaning,
I can think of myriads of pretty repugnant jobs I would not want her to do.
Dealing with my fathers dying enlightened me to alot of other really crappy jobs that people – mostly women do, that none of them should be ashamed of.
Personal care for the elderly is pretty disgusting.
When he was in the ER once the hospital forced my into the bathroom with him – he could not be left alone. After 10 minutes of trying to figure out how to wipe I had to do it for him.
Suddenly I had alot more respect for the caregivers that were taking care of him at his home.
Old people do not always make it to the toilet, they can not dress themselves or they do not.
He was experiencing dimensia – which reduces inhibitions.
My father who had never made even an off color remark in hi life was pinching asses, flashing his care givers and making sexual demands. My understanding from them is that all of this is quite common. You get all the bad parts of prostition, plus bad pay. and scatology, and occasionally blood thrown in, and now hope that you might feel good.
I am badly recalling a quote that is something like
Any job that you do well that supports you and your family is one you should be proud of.
There is alot of data to confrim that your view is actually correct.
“I think having someones tongue forced down her throat or hand into her crotch or grabbing her breast or pinching her ass without her permission are all far worse than being asked if she would like a well paid job traveling the world that includes sexual benefits for the boss.”
You are out of your mind. Completely clueless. Shove your nasty pointy libertarianism up your ass and compare that experience to whatever you want. Uggg.
I think we have a fairly clearly defined point of disagreement.
That is good, it allows looking at things closer.
So let me ask you is your point specific to sex ?
Do you think it is worse to punch someone or to ask them to clean out a septic tank for money ?
Can I ask you why it is you think that being offered something that is good for you, but that comes with things that might be bad is worse than no offer at all ?
I would also be interested to know what your results from the moral foundations test at yourmorals.org are ?
I am specifically interested in your scores on purity as your reaction suggests a very high value to purity or a very strong disgust response. That is consistent with strong conservatives, not the left.
My scores are
Harm 2.8
Fairness 3.3
Loyalty 2.7
Authority 1.5
Purity 1.8
Those are libertarian/liberalish.
Mike;
There is a lot of data on this. It is not funimentally different from prohibition or our drug laws.
Government inteference in free exchange does not work.
It does nto work even for good such as alcohol, drugs, and sex that we find the exchange of repugnant.
Specifically with regard to sex, we know that the Swedish system works better than prohibition, and that the even more liberal system in New Zealand works better still.
With respect to your daughter and her landlord – purportedly she has a lease.
Unless it specifically provides for sexual services, I can not see how he land lord could compel her. If she is late – she owes a late fee per her lease.
If she and her landlord voluntarily agree to substitute something else – I do not care.
I have zero interest in trading sex, but as a landlord I have had numerous side arrangments with tenants. On tennant gets the use of the back yard – in return for mowing it. Another the use of the front porch in return for clearing snow, another a discount on their rent for making sure the trash is out.
Initially these were informal, now I have them written into my leases.
The elimination of our prostitution laws is not my big thing. But I do follow several advocates of that on Twitter, and this is actually a very well understood and documented matter.
The problems with prostituion are worse the more severely restricted it is.
Even Nevada while better than the rest of the country is inferior to Sweden.
The internet is radically changing things.
It is increasingly easy for women to run their own prostitution business – without pimps and while otherwise protecting their reputation. This is resulting in a decrease in violence and disease.
There is even a decrease in rapes.
We also get lots of crappy information.
Today both the left and the right are united against “human trafficking”
There are real problems elswhere in the world.
But most claims of human traficing in the US are baloney.
I beleive the FBI had a high profile case in Seatle a few years ago.
Purportedly the biggest human trafficing bust in US history.
What it turned out to be was two guys who discovered that young korean women were coming to the US to make money selling sex for a year of two and then returning to Korea with money to pursue their lives, figured out they could make money helping them.
They bought apartments and services – because these guys spoke english and had credit ratings, and they provided advertising. They established rules and standards, but everything was entirely voluntary, They charged reasonable rates for services – far less than pimps, and the result was a better experience for everyone.
That is what Human Traficing in the US means.
Aparently about once a year the FBI and other federal agencies get together with local law enforcement to do a nationwide human traficing sweep.
If you go on Twitter you can read what the women involved in human trafficiing say about it.
Basically it is a month during which law enforcement makes their lives hell.
I told you that many women manage to safely and privately do this from their homes today.
That works well – until the police “doxx” you by arresting you and hanging a record arround your neck for the rest of your life.
Sorry, but the sex trade is actually one of the best documented instances we have where the less government is involved the better it works.
Even health and safety regulations on the sex trade – something I would guess everyone thinks are a good idea – based on the real world data and experience make things WORSE.
When you regulate prostitution – that results in alot more unregulated black market prostitution – even when prostutiion is legal.
Good intentioned regulations still produce unintended consequences.
Dave, I acknowledge that legalizing prostitution is not something you are passionately fighting for, nor am I opposing it. But I don’t know what real world data you speak of when you say less government involved the better it works. In Nevada, where prostitution has been legal for sometime, I believe you will find that regulation has increased, for example, now in the brothels condoms are mandatory (I believe that law came about in the late 80’s or early 90’s). I honestly don’t know if after the increased regulation that STI’s among sex workers went up, down, or remained the same. But I would wager you that the rate did not go up. If it did go down, it may not have been due to the regulation, maybe people just became more aware and concerned about AIDS and such, but I really doubt you have data to show that regulation in places where prostitution is legal, has made things worse. I don’t know anywhere where there is complete non-regulation, Sudan? I don’t know, what are your metrics? Do you have data on how many times a prostitute in a legal brothel gets more violently attacked then she agreed to? What percent of time she successfully is able to win a suit against her attacker or how many times the mobster that owns that legal brothel just takes payment for his damaged property and lets the attacker go? I’d like to look at your data.
Mike Hatcher-
Oh side note, I was the first one to mention my daughter in this thread-upon reflection, I should have used more impersonal terms. Wither my daughter ever became an exotic dancer or joined a convent (or both) would not be for me to discuss. I have invited her to read this blog in the past, and I’m going to inviter her again. I’m pretty sure with my invitation she will read this article, not sure I can coax her into commenting or not.
Mike just keep in mind when discussing issues such as this, I am in the Libertarian camp when it comes to personal behavior as long as it does not harm others and it is consenting adults. You can name almost any law that regulates behavior and I most likely would not support that law.
Mike;
We have many datapoints regarding prostition.
Nevada represents a legal but highly regulated state.
We have further data from Sweden, the netherlands, and New Zealand – as well as some other places.
We also have some interesting data from before and after Craiglist got intimidated out of running adds, and after Kamela Harris shutdown the back page.
I do not keep track of this in the same way I do some economic issues – though I do follow a few posters on Twitter who periodically link to studies.
And there are alot of them What sociologist would not want to do field research on prostitution.
You can also google for information.
I am not sure quite were NZ is at the moment I am not sure whether they fully leglaized without regulation and then backpedaled an adopted some regulation or the other way arround,
But I know we have comparisons of fully deregulated to safety regulated.
BTW we have much the same data on drug legalization.
The story is pretty universally the same.
Legalizing “victimless crimes” does not reduce the activity. It might slightly increase it.
But it dramaticially lowers violent crime and it makes those “in the life” much safer.
Decriminalization is better than criminalized,
legalized is better than decriminalized,
unregulated is better and safer than regulated.
Drugs, prostitution – does not matter.
Mike;
I seem to recall something on Netflix concerning prostitution that specifically addressed Nevada,
They actually noted traffic back and forth between NV and LA,
Because though there were some advantages to NV, illegal prostitution in LA actually gave the prostitutes more control of their lives and greater income.
the regulation in NV, requires Brothels, and the brothel owners are the ones who profit the most, further because they have a state guaranteed monopoly the actual prostitutes end up with far less freedom and control – but little legal risk.
Yes, there is data that says that regulation in places where prostituion is legal has made things worse.
I beleive one of the big datapoints on that is New Zealand.
Where they found that legalized but regulated prostitution resulted in a black market.
Because complying with regulations is expensive and prostition is often a very low skill job for poor women. Regulation creates barriers to entry – you can not get tested to get started without alot of money. But you can on the black market.
Laws – particularly those that attempt to change human nature do not stop the activity they seek to sanction, they just drive it underground.
Criminalizing homosequality did not make it go away.
Despicable Donald
Despicable GOPP: Grand Old Pederest Party
https://twitter.com/mooresenate/status/937737728816504832
GOPP- Grand Old Putrid Party
What is the DNC doing to Biden, Conyers, Franken ? What did they do to Clinton ?
I am very disappointed in the GOP, and even more disappointed in the people of Alabama.
I am disappointed that they are not BETTER than democrats.
I read that the majority of people in Alabama do not beleive the Moore allegations.
Why ? Because they do not trust the media.
I grasp that you do not understand this but people do not trust the media – for good reason
https://www.politico.com/story/2011/09/pew-opinion-of-media-never-worse-064261
The left and the media have burned their own credibility.
You are constantly ranting that Trump lies.
Guess what people beleive the media is accurate about 25% of the time.
I have noted before that I do not care that the press leans heavily to the left – and I do not.
Because in a free market people will see those biases and make their own judgements.
And the result is we do not trust the press anymore.
You keep noting Trump’s approval is in the toilet – and it is, just above everybody else.
Being the lest repugnant choice is a dirty way to win, but it still wins.
It does nto matter how low Trump’s approval rating is
It matter whether it is higher or lower than his enemies – and it is still significantly higher.
I can not get anything recent but after Comey testified – his approval rating was 4 points below Trumps.
Currently the government approval rating is 1/2 Trumps.
Biden, Conyers, Franken In Reverse order:
Franken apologized, invited an investigation, but overall, as detained here by others, his inappropriateness doesn’t rise to removal from office.
Conyers deserves to go, and IS going-to retire. Bye bye. I never liked him, a blustering fool I thought.
Biden didn’t do anything inappropriate enough to even deserve censure. His is the same impulse to be openly affectionate I see frequently in public gatherings, or did in the near past. My wife’s a middle school art teacher. Some of her students (ages 10 to 12) are cute as hell. I go to see school shows and exhibitions occasionally, and get a chance to chat with them. In previous years some of them would hug my wife, in thanks, and give me a hug as an innocent bystander. Sometimes parents would exchange hugs with us as well. Now we can’t allow that to happen. Who knows who’s taking cell phone photos that can come back to haunt you.
Madness in this society is contageous and viral.
Don’t be surprised to see the next wave of outrage against dog petting harrisment of your neighbor’s pets.
Franken, should resign.
But he wont.
Moore should not be elected, but he will.
He should not be seated, but he will.
There is really nothing the Senate can do about either but strip them of committee assignments and perqs.
Conyer is gone – should have happened long ago.
Biden is not in office. But his actual conduct is worse than Trumps or Frankens.
Trump never should have been elected,
but both parties ran deeply flawed candidates and we had to get one of them.
“Franken, should resign.
But he wont.”
Hummm. And if he does resign tomorrow as is being reported, will you shut up for a week?
No, but I will demand that the senate impeach Moor when he wins.
But they won’t.
I would be happy to be proven wrong on all counts.
There has never been a senator expelled from thr senate for action occurring before they took office. Voters vote and if they overlook past behaviors, the senate accepts those voters decision.
Could happen if same behaviors occur while in office
William Lorimer
the Senate expelled Lorimer on July 13, 1912.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-flash-lorimer-william-senate-roy-moore-1203-20171127-story,amp.html
Dave ” William Lorimer”
That is much different than actions before being elected. That is part of being elected, same as actions as a sitting official
Wienstein,
Biden
Clinton
‘Frankin
Conyers
Tobak
Spacey
Halperin
Lauer
Keillor
Rose
Weiseltier
Stone
Affleck
Ratner
Hoffman
Fish
Oreske
Sweeney
Kihuen
Hockenberry
Republicans ?
Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, Roy Moore, and potentially Donald Trump. The Democrats clearly outnumber the Republicans (mainly because of the Hollywood/media connection), but imagine the fallout if a parade of Trump accusers steps forward.
Rick;
My point to Jay is not that all democrats are pervs, or even that democrats are more likely to be pervs.
What the past 6 months has demonstrated is that the pretense that this is somehow a problem uniquely or mostly about the right is total crap.
I think this is a worse problem for the left – not because of numbers – I do not think the stories popping up represent a statistically valid sample. But because the left has made women’s issues into a core value, and they have been found to be deeply hypocritical.
Moore getting elected revolts me.
Ailes and OReilly were canned long ago – not soon enough but still well before this mess.
I am proud that the Murdock family was prepared to terminate important revenue generating forces in their empire, and they did so before everyone was doing it.
I am revolted that republicans in Alabama are likely to send Moore to the Senate.
I did not vote for Trump. I probably was not going to anyway. But the access Hollywood tape foreclosed any possiblitily.
But I could not vote for Hillary for very nearly the same reasons.
What Hillary did to Bill’s victims is not much better than what Bill did,
What Trump did is not as bad as Hillary – just on this issue.
At this point do you really think more Trump accusers are coming forward ?
One of the things about this going so public right now, is that once someone has been accused and enough time has passed, probably that is the extent of the story.
Franken now has 6 accusers. Nearly all are but grabs as I understand.
Tweeden is the anomaly. Might there be half a dozen more but grabs ? Sure.
I do not think we are going to come up with a Franken rape accuser.
I think the situation with Trump is more certain.
Anything that has not come out of the woodwork by now either does not exist or is not coming out ever.
That does not mean I condone Trump. Only that I think we have an accurate picture of his conduct with women – not as bad as Biden, worse than Franken.
Certainly not Clinton or Moore.
I think I am close to alone, in that I hope more of this comes out. I hope more prominent people are fired for sexual harrassment.
I am not comfortable with Pat’s self described behavior – but that is NOT what these people are doing.
At the same time as we are discussing prostitution – where I appear almost at the opposite extreme, I do not care that someone offers money or a job or …. for sex.
But those positions are not really at odds.
The distinction is free choice.
Rick, define fallout. We already had one president accused of rape by multiple women and nothing happened until the BJ in the oval office and a lie following. How much worse can it get?
Rick, I believe that there has been a parade of Trump accusers:
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Priscilla, I had the plan of posting the stories of the trump accusers one by one, one a day with no further comment. When Rick made this post on teh epidemic I was very surprised by his lack of explicit mention of trumps accusers in it, an omission in my opinion. I was miffed, had theories that his newly found trump sympathy had gotten the better. But I decided that Ricks blog has been consumed by trump trump trump for much of two years and if Rick wanted a respite and a redirect from everything being all about trump all the time I would honor that. So I did not do that (post the accusers one by one, which would have been powerful).
Now that we are well into this discussion and Rick himself has brought up trumps accusers here is a link to an excellent piece that covers the whole nine yards. I won’t do it one by one, I should, but it would be repetitive and I am on a crusade against repetitive Dave. So I will be consistent.
Now, if Franken and Conyers need to fall, then trump does as well. I believe they all need to fall.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/factcheck/ct-trump-sexual-misconduct-fact-check-20171122-story.html
Ron, I can relate. In fact, until this discussion, I thought I was quite Libertarian too. But I am discovering there is more conservatism in me than Libertarian on this subject. In an attempt to establish a baseline, you would agree there should be laws related to age, do you not? Age of consent? Assuming you agree, while I doubt I can get you there, I can take the fact that to a far lesser extent than children, since women on the average are physically weaker and men tend to be more aggressive, I can get to a place where we can have laws to help protect them. Shoot, maybe even allow them separate shower rooms from men. Mike Hatcher
Mike, As I said in an earlier posting, as long as the behaviors does not harm anyone and the actions occur between two CONSENTING ADULTS, then in most cases I would not support laws prohibiting those actions. ie escort services.
Now I am not so Libertarian to not want some regulations to insure safety in the trade from one person to another. Just as we have health regulations and laws regulating the production and distribution of alcohol, there should be laws regulating the production and distribution of marijuana, cannabis oil and prostitution (and currently with escorts, there is no health oversight).
And when it comes to kids, I want the book thrown at the perp. I would prefer life in prison without parole. No plea deal, no nothing. For instance, someone transporting child pornography faces a sentence of 5-20 years in federal prison. 5 years is a slap on the wrist given what the kids face in life. The minimum, no parole should start at 20, not end there.
As with any behavioral modification laws, they do not modify behaviors. There are still 25% or so of the drivers and passengers that do not use seat belts. There are still many motorcycle riders that do not use helmets and when they do, many use some WW2 war helmet that will do little good in an impact. Thousands still use marijuana, even in states where it is illegal. we need behavioral modification efforts based on the smoking model where money is put toward prevention and not enforcement of prohibition laws. In 1960 51% of americans smoked. Last year it was around 16%. Much of this decline is due to education, not prevention.
We have laws today that are suppose to protect women who are abused, raped or in some way attacked by a man. Those would not change. Just like Roby’s daughter that was offered “gas for ass”, that was solicitation and is illegal. A complaint could be filed and police report taken. Just like all prohibition laws, would an officer had time to investigate? That also would not change.
Elsewhere I noted that “systemizing” is an attribute that is strongly associated with libertarians (and very weak to non-existant in people with autism).
Another personality trait that is strongly associated with libertarains is a lack of disgust.
Conservatives score very high on disgust, libertarians very low, progressives in the middle.
This is from Prof. Haidt’s work on moral foundations.
This would be why conservatives have problems with homosexuality and libertarians don’t.
I would also suggest looking at Haidt’s work on moral foundations – you can test your own levels on I think it is his 6 moral foundations and then see if your personal foundations align with your ideology. Mine do strongly.
I do not as an example think that being asked to do something repugnant – so long as I am free to choose, should ever be prohibited. How is someone better off by having fewer choices, even if the additional choice is unappealing.
We – particularly in the US go nuts when it comes to kids.
I read about James Levine, and though the ew factor is huge, I can not see where he committed a crime. Voluntary sexual relations with an overage male is not a crime.
My wife deals with lots of sex crimes appeals and Age is a huge factor.
We do see situations where a 19yr old goes to jail – or atleast gets listed for life as a sex offender for having sex with a 17 year old.
But generally I do not think that we should be pimping out 14yr olds.
A particularly problematic area for libertarains is the legal protections afforded to those who really do not have the capacity to make choices for themselves.
The young, the old and those with mental capacity issues.
From personal experience government is able to step in an F’p someones live on claims of incapactiy far too easily.
Regardless, incapacity poses a huge problem – because it is not binary.
My father was capable of deciding that he wanted to forgoe treatment, knowing he would die, that he wanted to stay in his home, long after he was incapable of paying his own bills.
He was also capable of paying his own bills long after he was no longer capable of running his own business.
To the extent possible government should be constrained by BRIGHT LINES.
But drawing bight lines arround issues of capacity is impossible.
Some 14yr olds are more mature than 20 year olds.
To what extent should someone with an IQ of 70 be given control of their own lives ?
What about if two very low IQ people get married ? Have kids ?
Not easy questions. Not ones that you can craft nice clean clear laws on.
But the fact that there are a few hard questions that we can not define cleanly and that are going to involve government – does not mean that where we can easily say – leave people the freedom to make their own choice, should invite government fo jump in.
So what have I learned today ?
FBI Agent Peter Strzok:
His texts indicating bias and his affair with a lawyer working for McCabe came to DOJ’s attention resulting in his reassignment as a result of an IG investigation into Strzok and particularly his role in the Clinton Email Server investigation. At this time to my knowledge we know absolutely nothing about why Strzok is being investigated by the IG in that regard.
Strzok is a very senior FBI agent. He is the #1 agent with respect to Russia. This becomes important later.
Strzok is the agent who conducted the botched interview of Clinton regarding her email server.
Strzok is the agent responsible for several edits to Comey’s press conference condemning clinton but refusing to prosecute. Of those edits he is responsible for changing “grossly negligent” to careless, and apparently the phrase that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.
Strzok is also the agent who took Micheal Flynn’s statement that got Flynn into hot water.
We are now learning more of that event and my prior claim that it looked like entrappment is far stronger now.
Because Strzok is the FBI expert on Russia he would have reviewed the Kislyak transcripts BEFORE interviewing Flynn. So he knew what was said before he asked. That means this was not an investigation, it was an interview of a target. There are further reasons to beleive that.
Flynn was called by andrew McCabe at FBI and told that agents were on their way over to review security procedures – again Flynn was setup. Flynn was expecting some low level agents who were going to go over process and procedures with him. He was not expecting to be interviewed.
No one sane agrees to be interviewed by the FBI without prior preparation and without an attorney present. Clinton had several months to prepare for her interveiw with Strzok and the meaterial to be covered int eh interview was established before the interview, further she had Cheryl Mill her attorney present. Flynn found himself being asked by the senior FBI agent on Russian affairs to sit down for an interview – at this point Flynn did the stupidest thing in his life and instead of saying – I do not have time for this now, submit a list of questions and schedule something with my attorney did what far to many people of integrity do and said – sure lets get this over with.
As another FBI investigator has just stated – let me interview you for 2 hours, and I guarantee you I will be able to charge you with lying to the FBI.
It also appears at the moment that like the Clinton Interview the Flynn interview was NOT recorded. Therefore the claim that Flynn lied is rooted solely in Strzok’s notes on his 302.
Several people are now suggesting given Strzok’s increasingly evident bias, that the 2nd agent be tossed infront of a grand jury and questioned, because it is entirely possible that Strzok is misrepresenting Flynn’s answers.
This still gets worse. As Dershowitz points out repeatedly in all cases of crim-in-falsi basically lying under oath, in sworn statements or statements to the FBI,
the ly must be MATERIAL. Material has a legal meaning, an it is not “about something I think is important”, it actually has to be about either a crime or about a topic key to the investigation.
Given that there is no actual investigation here, and was no alleged crime there is no materiality.
Further Flynn was the NSA, despite the fact that Strzok was interviewing him – again absent and actual criminal investigation Flynn actually gets to decide what Strzok is allowed to be told.
One of the idiocies of this entire mess is this bizarre presumption that Those near the top of the chain of command are answerable to those at the bottom.
Flynn’s answers to Strzok were vague and incomplete, that is not the same as a “lie” depending on the circumstances. Given the nature of the maturial being discussed – and commucincations involving the Russian ambassodor are highly classified need to know, It is totally insance that Strzok would ask and Flynn would answer anything but generically absent a great deal of preperatory work – including verifying that Strzok had the appropriate clearances for the information.
Put simply the entire interview appears to have had no purpose but to setup Flynn.
Next Strzok takes this back to the FBI, and the next thing we know Sally Yates is pummeling Pence and Trump demanding Flynn’s head – because he can be “blackmailed” by the russians.
This claim has always been insane to me. How exactly do you bloackmail someone for less than accurate statements made in secret that you are never going to be able to find out.
The only way Flynn could be blackmailed by the Russians would be if Kislyak had deeply placed moles in the FBI. But even if this managed to get more broadly diseminated,
Neutering the blackmail is trivial – you go to Pence, Trump whoever and clarify whatever you reported.
There is actually video of Trump ruminating aimlessly on the day he accepted Flynn’s resignation. It is pretty bad – because it is apparent that Trump does not understand why Flynn had to resign.
He is aware of Flynn;s contact with Kislyak – as we are now learning – though Trump touches on that in the video, Flynn was directed to contact Kislyak, and directed to persuade Russia to not retaliate for sancitons and hopefully to get Russia to veto the US security council resolution condemning Israel. In otherwords there is no part of Flynn’s communications with Kislyak that did not have prior sanction, and there was nothing that Trump did not know about it.
So Trump is muttering because his NSA is resigning for lying, and Trump can not figure out what he lied about.
NEITHER CAN THE REST OF US!!!.
This Flynn Plea really has me Pissed, it is dredging up all kinds of issues that have nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with Flynn and nasty politics by Obama surogates.
Flynn was fired by Obama as DNI, because Flynn had a significant policy difference regarding intelligence with the CIA, NSA, and National Security advisor.
The difference was the Flynn felt our intelligence gathering was not heavily enough focussed on getting actionalable intelligence for military actions against out enemies, that our intelligence gathering was too heavily politically focused. Meaning we were more interested in what putin or Osama was thinking that what he was planing or doing.
While I agree with Flynn, that is irrelevant, It is a legitimate policy difference, and he can be fired for it.
But the effort to “get Flynn” when he returned with Obama as National Security advisor looks far too much like an orchestrated effort by the people who fired him in the first place to assure that:
He stayed fired, that he had no opertunity to change US policy on intelligence, and that he did not end up being any of their boss essentially.
This ignores the separate issue that Flynn was also at odds with the Iran deal and made clear that as NSA he intended to tear it to peices, and that as a result several key Obama surogates who were instrumental to the IRan deal – such as Rhoads were out to get Flynn.
Rhoads BTW is also a highly likely source for much of what has been leaked.
And I have only covered the Strzok/Flynn mess while there have been several other releases of information damaging to the FBI, DOJ, or the Obama administration.
Such as it is increasingly evident that the FBI and DOJ “obstructed Justice” regarding the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting.
I would not call some ambiguous reference to the country of New Zealand and some vague recollection of something you watched on Netflix a whole lot of data. I’m not saying you are wrong about your conclusions, but you have failed to substantiate your claim that there is a lot of data. It makes sense that if a sex worker doesn’t have to pay for testing, that saves the worker money, it might possibly inhibit how much he or she earns, for all I know, it might increase their earnings because they might get more customers who don’t want to use protection than having to do so, but over the course of their career, those who save money from testing or earn more business by not requiring condom use, well they might just end up with higher medical costs, we don’t know, there doesn’t appear to be any data. Ok buddy, I’ll go and look myself, but I’m not sure I’ll be that objective since I have already staked out my position. By the way, I already watched a show too, it was supposedly a documentary. The conclusion was that sex workers in regulated locations might possibly be a little better off than those in unregulated places, but both places were pretty dreadful and full of violence. Decriminalization and deregulation are, as I know that you know, two separate things. Problem as I see it is we don’t have much to compare to on either subject. Mike Hatcher
Roby, write it out in detail; I’m positive it’s publishable.
(Do it!)
Jay, the drummer in my former band has a native gift for telling stories of his rough and tumble youth. Blowing shit up, like a hunting camp or a 52 plymouth with his group of rowdy friend (they only blew their own shit up, usually when totally pissed.) I’ve told him that he should make a career out of that, at least record the stories online or something. His answer: I can’t tell those stories in public, They’re all true!
Goes for me as well, I would disrupt my life and my family’s as well if I went public. Some of the people involved are dead. Some aren’t. There would be repercussions. Fraid its my own little chuckle and that is where it ends. It would make a good sort of Garrison Keillor rambling fantastic monologue on PHC. Except that it is not a fantasy.
Maybe I can pull a Mark Twain and seal the records till after I am gone.
I’ve told a small part of the story here before but I will repeat it for you, the whole adventure began innocently when I saved the article in the UVM student newspaper where some stoner was talking the pothead lingo in an article about how rippin the annual 4/20 smoke in had been and I mailed that stoner article off to all the state newspapers along with an anonymous phony letter from the UVM pot club in my best stoner impersonation inviting them to come and cover the next event, it was going to be bitchin. Which the papers took me up on, front page photos and article,editorials mentioning my phony invitation letter as an example of how out of control the stoners were at UVM, frequent follow ups on UVM.
Then, it happened that a good friend of mine, James Dwinell, who had been the chair of the Vermont GOP, started a sort of conservative point of view online newsletter that went out to all of the political community in Vermont. I covered the UVM beat for him. Then 9/11 happened, Ward Churchill got invited to speak at UVM, the campus commies blamed 9/11 on Americans, Howard ZInn showed up and drew every rasta wannabee from 500 miles and I wrote about it all in sarcastic detail for James’ newsletter. Everyone in government got an earful, UVM trustees too.
From my father. who is an expert on educational college funding as e.g. among other things a college president and the former chancellor of Higher Ed in a large midwestern state, I learned that UVM was far too large an institution compared to the state population and budget of Vermont. They have the highest tuition of any public university because so little of that contribution comes from the state, which is a big problem. No one wants to have the highest tuition in the country. But, that contribution from the state, small as it is, is still crucial and cutting it meant disaster, unaffordability, thus leverage on the Universtity to get things under control.
So, armed with that knowledge we pushed hard on the UVM craziness in James’ newsletter. Even the dem dominated state government under Howard Dean (and I had another series of pranks I won’t go into on Howard Dean and the the state’s largest ridiculously liberal leaning news paper and its editorial writers) was repulsed by the left wing nuttery at UVM and demanded a change if they were going to avoid cutting funding. Between 4/20 day defences by then-president Ramaley, and the condemnations of America following 9/11 by louder than everyone campus marxists, I painted a pretty dramatic birds eye view description of UVM being run over by nutty pot heads and far lefties. Ramaley went quickly, she was replaced by the sane former Gov. Salmon. He handed me my Ph.D when I graduated. He had no idea who he was handing it to. Everything I had done was anonymous.
There is a lot more to it that followed, Dean ran for POTUS. Vermont had a ridiculous Supreme Court decision that led to a statewide property tax, there was a revolt that sent the legislature to the GOP for the first in a generation, the liberal press disgraced themselves with their propaganda and were full of obnoxious and easily punctured personalities. an actual far left progressive party got some traction and started to hurt the democrats leading to liberal-far left warfare that I found ways to provoke prankwise. I had easy pickins from a wide number of targets. It all happened while I was a grad student and single parent, but I found the time to be a guerilla.
Anyhow that is how my career as a guerilla political warrior got started, I pranked the 4/20 pot smoke in day and it all took off from there. I’m sure our libertarians won’t approve. I hate pot and I hate the connection between smoking it and becoming a stupid glassy eyed semi- or full marxist. I’m proud of having stopped it.
In your face libertarians, with your prostitutes and drugs. Go back to Amsterdam.
I’m still recommending you write it out, but as a screenplay in historical context, title it Revenge of the Guerilla Political Warrior, make yourself the main character, throw in some good music, a little college romance (no groping, but semi nudity OK),a good comedic actor to play Howard Dean, and Netflix will be calling 😎.
I have some reservations about your Pot reactions. I agree, the glassy eyed user is on a slow motion downward spiral into insentience. But for the vast majority of college age users, like alcohol for generations of predecessors, it was a rite of passage, abandoned soon after. At least that’s my recollection, from my own college years, and of my after college contemporaries, who gave up grass and other mind altering products, for milder mind-bending wine and stomach bending Whiskey. Let’s light up evolved into bottoms-up.
In any case, you really are a fantastic writer.
You should be doing it professionally at some level.
I do not care if Pot converts you to a marxist or kills you.
You should still be free to buy it and to use it.
Thanks Jay, I enjoy writing. Rick is a fantastic writer too, look where that got him, a following composed mostly of libertarians! Oh, the long line of those who wish to be writers.
I scatter my efforts in too many directions. I play guitar, violin, viola, drums, flute. I play classical music, jazz, rock, folk, Russian and Ukrainian. I play some balalaika too and some uke.
What if I just focused on one thing, music, one instrument, and one style? I would get much further! I am the classic ADD case. I have learned to focus when it comes to work but my avocation life outside of work goes off in so many directions that nothing gets channelled into one flow. I focused only on classical guitar about a year ago for about 2 months. The results were wonderful. And if I focused on it for a year?
And, wasting my time on the futility of following politics and opining, I must be nuts.
Here is a Bach cello suite (as of this year I play it on the viola as well, its wonderful, I should record that). If you are interested you can see other classical guitar pieces I recorded last year just by going into the “chuck Berry” youtube area. All of them are imperfect, full of little slips and mistakes. Lots of the 66 city band stuff as well, and miscellaneous.
Beautiful!
And amazing you can remember the sequence of all those notes, and make your fingers obey to dexteriously follow them.
I’m lucky to punch in the right numbers on my tv remote…
While I was recording my classical pieces last year, this slipped out as a blowing off steam reaction to the frustration of trying to get classical piece perfect. I sort of liked it and kept it. Its a bit Alvin Lee ish, just a quick improv.
You’ll find that Carol of the bells arrangement in the Chuck Berry site stuff too, I never got it perfected, difficult. That is what I Should be doing with my free time, perfecting one style one instrument.
Here’s a thought: combine music with words.
A unique melding of classical music with your commentary. Segovia meets Springsteen.
Jay, dexterity, coordination is my achilles heel. I have almost none. You should see my handwriting. Musical talent is not one talent, its a group of talents, its flexibility, memory, coordination, musical intelligence, the ability to focus, etc. I am very low on the scale of dexterity. I have taught people who are high on the scale, they are something totally different. I have some musical strong points but I fight my lack of dexterity and coordination via endless practice. Its genetic. If I had been born with the high dexterity/coordination then I would have been a musician. But its a difficult life, there is always someone even more gifted than even really gifted people.
Here is what the high end of the musical talent spectrum looks like, Maxim Vengerov teaching 4 different young musicians The best of them is little girl. This is sublime, this is where the gods live. Note the Russian connection, Russians have a huge place in classical music, many of the most sublime musicians have a Russian connection. When I lived in Moscow, my joy was seeing fantastic classical music at the Tchaikovsky music hall, geniuses one after the other. For 100 rubles I could see miraculous performances.
Mike;
Correct, I did not provide you with alot of data.
I provided you with some starting points to find it.
Some topics I am familiar enough that I can cite specific studies from the top of my head.
this is not one of those.
If you want to find out about this – I have given you enough that you will be able to.
We live in the internet era and it is incredibly easy to find things out.
There are studies – as I have said, and usually each study results in stories in the media somewhere,
Further there is an active online community of prostitutes, and former prostitutes.
There are many blogs where women from the life debate issues, including legal issues, safety issue, and correct peoples misperceptions, both the overly glamorous ones and the overly dark ones. There is political advocacy and you will certainly get information about these studies from those blogs.
Further I am pretty sure that periodically Cato, Reason and various libertarian organizations run stories – and usually provide references and links to data and studies.
Netflix has a penchant for quasi purient documentaries – they are cheap to produce and popular
So there are plenty of ways to find out – if you want to.
You are free to beleive me or disbelive me.
Or you can check it out.
You are free to choose.
With respect to your observations on testing – both are likely to be true and then some.
One of the big problem with regulation is that it is one size fits all.
Well one size never fits all, and that means there are usually myriads of different unitended consequences. You though of two – both are near certain to be true – but not UNIVERSALLY true.
But fundimentally when government says “you can not do X” when there are a reasonable number of people who wish to do X, limited means of actually enforcing the prohibition, and no one is harmed – in the sense that force is used, that people are deprived of their free choice,
then the law will be violated alot, and there will be a “black market in X”
In the USSR it was estimated that the black market was 2-3 times the size of the official economy.
With respect to resource – absolutely the quality is going to vary.
Things on netflix are going to have a particular focus – which is making money for netflix, not objectively exploring the issue – but that does not make them useless.
Actual objectivity does not exist – but some sources are better at it than others.
The other thing I would note – as with drugs, and as with everything else.
I am not EVER saying free market solutions are perfect. That legalising Drugs or Prostitution or getting rid of the FDA will bring about utopia.
Drugs will ALWAYS have a dark side. Prostitution will always have a dark side,
bad things that do not happen now or atleast are not often heard of will happen if you eliminate the FDA.
One of the most difficult things to grasp about most libertarian arguments is libertarians do NOT offer utopia.
Conservatives and progressives sell utopia. They are going to end discrimination, end the exploitation of women, end home phobia, end abortions, end violence against women, end drug overdoses, end …..
They never succeed. They can not succeed. We know they can not succeed, but we beleive they will make things better. But they do not – atleast not NET. Obviously the make some things better.
Libertarians better understand human nature. If somethjing is happening – it is because people want it to, and you can not stop that by making it illegal.
If you actually want to do something about the problems associated with drugs, you must change people. That is very hard, probably not even completely possible, regardless, you do not do it with laws. If it is going to happen – it happens over time, as society learns more, or our values change.
In my lifetime the world has shifted cataclymiscally with respect to homosexuality.
That shift did not occur as a consequence of laws. In nearly all cases – peoples attitudes were ahead of the law.
Anyway legalizine drugs is not going to reduce drug addiction or end overdoses.
It might slightly increase each. But it will radically reduce the crime and violence assocaited with drugs. It also will end the tremendous societal and government cost of the war on drugs.
The same is true of prostitution.
With respect to comparative aspect of criminal, decriminal, regulated, and deregulated,
As i said there is lots of data. In the US nevada gives us alot of information on the effects of legal but highly regulated prositution.
Prostitution is legal in the entire westen hemisphere – except the US, suriname, Haiti, Jamaica, and the bahamas.
It is legal in nearly all of europe, it is legal in australia and new zealand.
It is restricted in iceland, norway, sweden, india, and parts of austraila, japan.
There is no law at all in all of indonesia, and parts of africa.
We have plenty of ability to make comparisons.
Further we have also seen changes in many of these places so we have before and after data.
And as I noted socialogists love to study this.
My perspective on the Russian influence in our election.
I believe that a small amount of strategically applied subterfuge can upheave a large but precarious system. I know this because once upon a time in Vermont, in Burlington, at UVM, grandiose as it may sound, I was that force.
I succeeded in removing a left wing PC University president (a feminist activist woman), ending “4/20” day (a pot smoke held by left wingers on april 20) at UVM, planting the seeds of a funded conservative GOP student club, and completely routing the Howard Zinn flavor that a small number of Marxist activists professors and their student disciples had given to UVM. I changed the entire ideological flavor and course of a State University and due to that, to some extent, a left wing city (Bernie’s City). The ripples even affected the state.
Most of what I did was done “underground.” There were a number of dirty tricks/pranks that I played that were spectacularly productive beyond my wildest expectations when I started with only the intention of playing some pranks on the lefties and potheads. Only one other person knows most of the story of my little campaign to turn UVM around and with it even some larger things. When I started it, out of my quirky sense of humor and being sick and tired to the Howard Zinn pothead flavor I had ideas far less ambitious.
I did have some very significant help that I would never have got anywhere without and I used forces that already were in existence but had not been connected together by anyone previous to my little campaign. The changes that came about may well have happened in some form without me in time, but they certainly would not have happened in the way they did at the speed they did without my efforts.
Today, I am totally disconnected from any of the people and forces that I was involved with then in my activism both underground and in public. Usually I even almost totally forget that this phase of my life ever even happened. But when I do remember I smile. Outside of my family life, I am sure it is the most consequential thing I have ever done.
I was also a key player in a Vermont wide revolt against the overreach of the wacky left in Vermont politics, most (but not all) of what I did in that arena was not “underground” but one or two important things I did were. And, man, were they effective. And funnier than shit, satisfying.
I could not have done what I did without the vast impersonal forces. I just so happened to be in the perfect place and had the knowledge and connections due to a series of life coincidences.
So, I believe that subterfuge, underground pranking, dirty tricks can work and redirect a system because I did it myself once. I was not a professional at that and the resources I had at my disposal were tiny compared to those available to the professionals and long existing institutions in putin’s employ.
I have never said or believed that putin/assange were the only wild cards in this election, far from it, simply that they were the only illegitimate ones. I am shocked at the acceptance of their help and even their points of view in some cases by some people and groups on the right.
The ideological and partisan attacks on Mueller are predictable, pathetic, and they truly disgust me.
Time will tell what Mueller will produce, trying to predict it and wasting words on connecting the dots when we not have access to the real intelligence information that Mueller does is a silly game, a waste of time.
All the same, I think that some, in all of their certainty, may be in for a large surprise. It may be “the left,” it may be “the right,” it may be everyone.
Roby, you have unambiguously explained your position here, and the fact that you speak from a background of having used “underground” tactics to achieve an outcome gives your explanation added weight and context.
I disagree that the Mueller investigation is above reproach. I believe that there is much partisanship involved on both sides.
I am curious as to why you believe that only one side does this, why you believe that Robert Mueller is without fault and why you believe that any criticism of his investigation so far is necessarily partisan.
Because Mueller is from the grey world of professionals, not the political world of partisanship. He is a republican for god sakes appointed by Bush as the head of the FBI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller
The trashing of the FBI and the American intelligence community in general by the right in the last year is one of those events that has shocked me to my core.
Some day the right is going to miss the FBI et al after they have got done trashing it. It ain’t perfect, and intelligence is a very difficult world, even harder in a democracy. Just try living without it, which the right is bringing us to by crippling partisan cynicism.
Our intelligence system is up against putins KGB. The Russians do not take the legs out from under their intelligence. Ours is fighting the KGB (used casually since you know what I mean by it) and the GOP.
It scares the bejesus out of me.
As I noted in another post you are confusing one form of conflict of interest for another.
Muellers problem is not that he is a partisan crony.
It is that he is an insider crony.
Trump was elected specifically to disempower the elite corp that the Comey’s and Mueller’s and Rosenstein’s inhabit.
He campaign vigorously on specifically that. He made it clear in his inauguration address that things were going to change.
Trump is at war with them, and they are at war back with him.
All that is fine, the problem is that Trump won the election, and Mueller and his cronies are not entitled to reverse the results by gaming the system.
It now appears that Flynn did not even know he was actually being interviewed by the FBI when he purportedly lied to them.
In otherwords he thought he was exchanging conversation with a collegue and apparently did not feel the need to be precise.
Please, Please for god’s sake let us use that standard to charge and convict members of the Obama administration, we can jail the entire bunch.
Regardless, the standard for Mueller is NOT the nonsense you are spouting.
It is the “APPEARANCE” of impropriety
We have had that for some time, it just keeps getting worse.
Thought the Recent Strzok revelations go beyond Mueller.
Mueller is harmed by the revelations – it demonstrates poor judgement on Mueller’s part vetting his team, and it makes all the claims of partisanship against other members of the team redound all the louder – were they too really vetted that well for bias ?
But Mueller did apparently get rid of Strzok when he found out – and should be congradulated for that.
But with the Flynn Plea he has actually created a new problem for himself.
Flynn’s plea is rooted in a conversation between Strzok and Flynn that was not represented as an interview, in fact it was represented as a review of Security procedures. That was setup by McCabe and Strzok.
So Mueller is using a seriously questionable – almost certainly entrapment “interview” by an agent that Mueller himself has removed for bias as the basis of charges against Flynn.
And Mueller was aware of this when he forced the plea.
That is or is very close to prosecutorial misconduct.
The objective of an investigation is not to Manufacture crimes, in the specific instance of the special counsel it is not supposed to even be to find them. it is to investigate specified crimes, and if appropriate prosecute them.
Andrew McCarthy who has been repeatedly asserting that the entire Mueller investigation is flawed because it does nto comply with the Special Counsel law, it unconstitutionaly blurrs a counter intelligence operation with a criminal prosecution. McCarthy has aparently thrown in the towel and said – what the hell. If we are going to completely ignore the rule of law – then lets do so in a thoroughly bipartisan manner and start an Obama/Iran Special Counsel investigation.
I do not think that is likely, but it is possible, and the more egregious Mueller’s conduct gets the more likely it becomes. And it should not only terrify the left – but it should specifically terrify Mueller, because he would be a potential target.
Essentially McCarthy is saying the best way to reign in a rogue special counsel may be to appoint another rogue special counsel with the power to go after the first.
With respect to Thrashing the FBI – get past it. The FBI has had serious problems for a long long time. While a few people are coming forward to note that the fish rots from the head, and with respect to the current problems that is evident. The investigations of the past decade have mostly been botched from the top. At the same time. though you may not have been paying attention there have been myriads of stories of serious failures with respect to the FBI for some time, that have nothing specific to do with Trump or Clinton or those investigations.
There is no doubt that the FBI has accomplished some things it deserves to be proud of.
And there are many agents who really live up to the ideals we expect.
But ignoring the long mess that Strzok is tied to, I can run a long list of serious FBI problems,
including the major FBI crime lab fiasco, the sexual harrassment lawsuit, Several instances where the FBI entrapped, and possibly encouraged acts of terrorism. The U! obstruction,
The Anthrax debacle, Ruby Ridge, Wacco, the attempted coverup of the Clinton/Lynch meeting,
And that is just a few off the top of my head
With respect to our intelligence services – again there are good people.
But I am sorry, they have a many decades long reputation for failure.
Why do you beleive the CIA on Russia when they were Wrong about NK,. Wrong about Iran, Wrong about Iraq, Wrong about ISIS, in fact it is pretty much impossible to thing of anything since the creation of the CIA that they have been right about.
You portray this as a war with the KGB – we are not at war with Russia.
What exactly is it you expect the KGB to do ? Steal the shiping dates for troop ships ?
Oops we are not at war.
The objective of the KGB is to steal our technology and to guess what we are up to politically.
What else is it that you think the KGB is up to ? Creating a US 5th column ?
I guess since Trump has pushed the neocon’s back into the Democratic party that you have become infecting with Dick Chenney disease.
Yes, actually I beleive you could burn the entire DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, .. down to the ground, and rebuild at about 1/4 the size and task them to the things we as a nation actually need and be far better odd.
The most fundimental problem with the Mueller investigation is that it is and always was a political investigation from the start.
It has two goals:
To protect the DOJ and FBI from the exposure of their conduct during the Obama administration – a goal they are failing miserably at.
To damage Trump as much as possible
I am not sure it is quite as partisan as you. I do not think it is so much Democrats vs. republicans. As it is ordinary people vs “their betters”.
They are not out to get Trump because he is republican.
But because he is their to tear down the elites.
This is why as a whole despite the fact that Trump is president he doe not have nearly the control of any part of the administration that Obama did. Even the whitehouse is a dangerous place for Trump.
Alot of this was setup by the election. Trump ran on and was elected to “drain the swamp”.
And unlike traditional politicians I think that Washington elites believe that promise was serious.
Trump has not made efforts to make nice with Washington.
So Trump came to DC and it was crystal clear from day one, to most of the people in DC, that Trump is their enemy. Not because he was Republican.
Roby, Michael Flynn is a retired 3-star general, who served 33 years in the military, a combat veteran with a specialty in counterterrorism, who was appointed by OBAMA as the Director of Defense Intelligence as well as the Chair of the Military Intelligence Board. Prior to his appointments, he had served as Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
You don’t consider Flynn to be from the “grey world of professionals?”
Politics plays a role in the intelligence community, in the military, in every aspect of government:
Was J.Edgar Hoover not political? How about Douglass MacArthur? David Petraeus, a 4 star general AND a CIA Director was forced to resign after having an affair and mishandling classified information.
Being a professional does not mean that you cannot be a partisan. And, from everything I can see, Mueller is not only a partisan, but has been conducting a partisan investigation.
Here is a pretty long “biography” of Mueller
I found it surprising. Frankly disturbing. After reading it I was wondering how Mueller advanced at all.
He has a very long history of “failing upward”. In other words he takes a job, botches it and then gets promoted to a higher position.
This man never should have been a US attorney or FBI directory.
I beleive elsewhere I noted a long but incomplete list of the FBI’s modern failures.
Mueller is associated with nearly every one – as well as some I forgot.
Mueller has botched numerous high profile investigations.
In fact I do not think he actually has any successful high profile prosecutions.
He loses in court, he loses on appeal, he botches the investigations he is part of.
This is not the honorable and distinguished Prosecutor we keep hearing about.
About the only positive thing that can be said for him is that he is not “partisan”.
A better description appears to be
Arrogant.
Agressive
Overbearing.
Dictatorial
Aloof
incompetent
unwilling to take responsibility
Blames others.
Anyway, I have offered an entirely different view of his “partisanship”.
Which I think is being missed.
This is NOT Republicans vs. Democrats.
It is Trump vs. the deep state.
It is Trump vs. the “swamp creatures”.
Whether it is Rosenstein, Comey, Mueller or Strzok, the question is not whether they are Biased – democrat/republican. But whether they are upholding the constitution which vests the executive powers solely in the president – and the presidents expressed desire is to “drain the swamp”,
or whether they view themselves as part of the resistance – the elites keeping the barbarians from the gates.
One issue that comes up constantly is “independence” the independence of the DOJ, and of the FBI. Comey testified that he was championing and protecting the FBI’s independence.
There is no doubt there is a long traditon of independence in both – particularly post FDR.
But in fact constitutionally there is none. The entire power of the executive branch constitutionally rests with the president.
If you in the executive branch and are at odds with the president – even when the president is wrong and his directions are unconstitutional, your choices are:
Persuade the president to change direction.
Resign.
There is no third choice.
Alternatives are only available to the courts – which are constitutionally independent, and congress.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-record-20171122-story.html
Just this morning, this column appeared in National Review. Both you and Jay have linked articles by David French, who has often been highly critical of President Trump. Perhaps you’ll read this one, which is critical of the Mueller investigation. French has long been in favor of a non-partisan, transparent investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. He does not appear to believe that Mueller’s investigation fits that description:
“For a critical mass of the public to have confidence in Mueller’s investigation, it must be as transparent and accountable as humanly possible. A proper investigation into Russian interference in our election is vital to the health of our democracy. A biased and opaque probe, however, will do far more harm than good.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454361/peter-strzok-fbi-scandal-partisan-american-bureaucracy?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202017-12-05&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
I listened to a Trey Gowdy interview last night.
I was very surprised. While Gowdy is partisan, he is also very sharp and a former prosecutor.
He was blunt that democrats were stalling trying to keep this investigation open through the 2018 elections.
He was very forceful with respect to the obstruction that the DOJ and FBI are engaging in.
but made it clear – what he wants is the documents the House has requested – not scalps at DOJ and FBI or a protracted legal or constitutional battle.
I thought he was fairly astute with respect to the Flynn plea.
He pretty much said Flynn plead guilty to something he obviously did not do, in return for protection for himself and his son, and that he got an excellent deal.
That there is no chance he is going to jail, that he is near useless to Mueller as a witness as a result of the plea.
At the same time Gowdy took a strong stance AGAINST a 2nd special prosecutor.
He expressed great confidence not only in Mueller, but that Mueller would be done soon.
It has been noted that democrats have shifted from the Russia Collusion narrative to the obstruction of justice one.
Because the collusion narative is dead.
Project Veritas has released more video’s from WaPo with their top National Security reporter saying, there is nothing there on collusion.
Obstruction of justice is a dead horse.
Several excellent lawyers have stated that repeatedly – including Derschowitz, Turley and Trump’s own lawyer.
They are being misrepresented in the press – as following Nixon’s assertion that “if the president does it, it is not illegal”.
The actual state of the law is that the president can not obstruct justice so long as his actions are within his constitutional powers.
That is NOT the same as the president can do whatever he pleases.
Derschowitz noted that Bush I explicitly pardoned Weinberger to END a federal investigation.
And no one tried to prosecute for obstruction.
The president can fire Mueller, he can direct the DOJ that the investigation is over. He can pardon everyone, he can pardon himself, he can tall Comey not to prosecute Flynn – and the only consequence he can be subject to is impeachment.
I am starting to get a completely different sense of things right now.
Trump has actually been pretty restrained in my judgement regarding this entire investigation.
While he has tweeted and ranted, he has not actually done anything.
I am starting to think that the actual strategy is to let Mueller fizzle,
Trump has had the power to fire Mueller or to reign him in. There are lots of things he has had the ability to do for a long time that he has chosen not to.
But all of those things have a set of risks:
1). They prolong this.
2). They risk impeachment – which Trump would almost certainly survive, but would add atleast another year to this debacle and likely cost house and senate seats and possibly any re-election prospects.
I am almost beinging to think that Mueller was given this because he has never successfully prosecuted a high profile case, and because he does nto have what it takes to prosecute this.
Further I would note that Trump and his family and their lawyers are the one group that actually knows the truth of all of the allegations.
If there is nothing to this – and as I have repeatedly stated I do not think it is even possible for their to be, their jeopardy in allowing this to go forward is purely avoiding getting trapped in a process crime – and protecting from that is Trump’s legal teams job.
Doing any of the things that Trump is justified and has the power to do, prolong this.
One of the things that Jay and Roby and the left should ponder is that when this dies,
Trump’s approval skyrockets.
But democrats and the left do not recover.
This has always been a gigantic game of chicken. One side or the other is losing big.
After the Mueller investigation closes Trump will have the political power and authority to clean house at DOJ and FBI and also the intelligence community
Doing so now fuels the “obstruction of justice” nonsense.
But if the Mueller investigation comes to an end without finding anything.
Trump will be able to do as he pleases. He will “own” the FBI and DOJ and …..
“Being a professional does not mean that you cannot be a partisan. And, from everything I can see, Mueller is not only a partisan, but has been conducting a partisan investigation.”
But Priscilla, you have a lens, you yourself are partisan. How can you tell whether its partisan through your own lens?
Perform a thought experiment, try to Really imagine that all of your partisan views just fell away, a bad dream, you wake up and they disappear. How different would everything seem?
I posted a link to Maxim Vengerov teaching 4 young musicians. Partisan politics is a cesspool. Climb out of it to something far far far better. Enter the other end of the human spectrum, put down what you are doing with politics and immerse yourself in something sublime, godly. Its about an hour. Have a glass of wine and enter that sublime world for an hour and then ask yourself if you want to go back to world of partisan mud throwing.
“But Priscilla, you have a lens, you yourself are partisan. How can you tell whether its partisan through your own lens?”
I thought you were a scientist ? This is literally post-modernist crap.
Perfect Objectivity is not possible. But objectivity is not binary either.
It is actually possible to separate what is most probably true from what is most probably false.
If that were not so science would be completely impossible.
I would look arround. Some of us grasp that Trump is far from perfect, and yet not the devil incarnate. Bias comes in degrees and you drown in it.
Take any issue being debated – for the sake of argument, take any legal theory that the left is offering to punish Trump. Are you prepared to apply the exact same standard to the Obama administration ?
If Flynn’s calls to Kislyak are Logan act violations – then Obama’s meetings with Foriegn leaders during the transition were too.
If Flynn’s inaccurate reporting to the FBI in a non-interview interview is a 18 U.S.C. 1001 violation, then aren’t Abedin and Mill’s outright lies in a scheduled interview with the same agent.
Further, isn’t it extremely reasonable to conclude that a very senior FBI agent who applies very nearly the same fact pattern completely different for one person than another is in some serious way compromised and biased ? Particularly when that agent has expressed bias to others ?
There are myriads of means and techniques of cancelling out biases, without them nothing would be knowable.
One of Your core arguments – and a very common one from others on TNM is that in a conflict both sides are wrong and the truth to the extent it exists must reside in the middle.
That should be absolutely total bunk and you should know it.
There are so many flaws in that argument.
Everything is not binary.
You toss “partisan” arround as if by saying partisan you can dismiss everything completely.
Many things are partisan, further partisan comes in many flavors.
I have noted that I do not think the Mueller/Comey/Rosenstein/Strzok Bias/partisanship is democrat/republican it is more elitist public servant vs. the president elected to reign them in.
Regardless, I can list myriad of “partisan issues”
Rarely is either party right on one of those,
but nearly always one party is more right than the other.
i.e. the Truth is not in the middle but either close to one parties position or somewhere different from other parties.
Sometimes the republicans are closer to the truth, sometimes it is democrats, sometimes it lies somewhere else.
Regardless, we need not throw up our hands and say “partisan conflict” we can do nothing.
Or worse as you do “partisan conflict lets go with the left.
One more thing. The mud. I can destroy the character of anyone if I look hard enough. The most fundamental political habit is “getting the dirt” on whoever we don’t like, whoever is doing something we don’t like. I am sure that absolutely true facts can be found and emphasized on even the most noble person or institution to paint an utterly true but completely skewed picture, such that their own mother should not love them.
This is what we do all day long in political talk, its the basis of politics, digging for the facts that destroy a character and obsessing with them.
What a dirty part of the soul, destruction of character, maligning of a life. OK, some people beg for it, that is the temptation. And they (whoever one’s adversary is) did it first.
What was that little thing Christ said about the first stone?
You seem to conflate two separate premises.
The one is that there is dirt on everyone.
The other that everyone can be destroyed by lies.
I do not accept the first. I do not think that every – or even most people have behaved such that their behavior alone would disqualify them from public office.
Further even of those of us who are less than perfect – few of us have flaws so large that they would disqualify them from public office.
I am disturbed by Franken’s behavior. But my suspicion is that it is tame for politicians.
Certainly it is not as bad as Moore’s or Clinton’s.
I think that is an easy judgement all of us can make.
At the same time I do not think the majority of males are routinely ugrabbing the buts of wmone they have no relationship with.
In otherwords, While I think that Franken’s conduct is innoccuous by political standards, I think it is very rare by the standards of ordinary people.
I certainly hope that is the case.
Regardless, I do not think we must accept being governed by rapists, Peodophiles, and sexual harrassers
I also think that we are entitled to be governed by people who are competent.
But if we must be governed by the worst of us then we had better have some serious limits on government – beyond the will of the majority, because otherwise we are screwed.
Roby, write it out in detail; I’m positive it’s publishable.
(Do it!)
While your story is interesting it is also self defeating.
Did you commit any crimes ?
If not then go away.
You also fail to address the critical element.
Though I do not honestly beleive Russia succeeded in persading large numbers of people of anything – except after the fact those on the left unable to beleive they lost because of who they are, decided it must have been russia.
The left is great at scapegoating. Ask Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
But lets say that Russia somehow magically persuaded myriads of voters to switch from Clinton to Trump. So ? Where is the crime ?
Was there a gun to the voters heads ? Were they black mailed ?
To win this you not only have to persuade alot of voters they made the wrong choice, but they did so because they were deceived by Russia.
It is just not going to happen. Given that the left can not accept that they lost because of who they are, why do you expect Trump voters to believe they were stupid ?
Maybe I am not being clear, you need to persuade people that they are as stupid as you think they are. Do you understand how difficutl that is ?
Almost the only people you are ever going to convince are people who DID NOT vote for Trump.
They are easy – other people were stupid.
While you start your Russia Collusion nonsense with the likely support of probably nearly 100% of Clinton voters, you have structured your meme such that any Trump voter that buys your story has to accept that they were duped.
“Did you commit any crimes ?
If not then go away.”
You go away! (yeah right).
Seriously, where do you get the balls?
Again everything is about you, except when it is about me.
No predicting Mueller is not that hard.
When you eliminate the impossible whatever is left however unlikely is the truth.
A large portion of the Trump/Russia collusion story is either completely impossible, or very nearly so.
The Flynn indictment on the one hand gets Mueller inside the inner circle of Team Trump,
But at the same time it comes very close to taking anything pre election off the table.
Mueller’s relatively transparent next step is going after Kushner and hoping to catch him in a lie about Trump Transition actions involving Russia.
That is going to be very hard.
Worse still, it is highly unlikely Meuller can flip Kushner.
Numerous people have noted that Trump’s use of family rather than cutouts puts the family at risk. But they fail to note that works both ways. Family does not easily turn on family, and particularly when you have the implicit promise of a presidential pardon.
There are only so many choices left.
I would further note that thus far Mueller has been very predictable.
He has been not thus far bought any of the constitutionally idiotic nonsense of the left – like the Trump statements to Comey being obstruction.
He has stuck to process crimes. He has hit the expected targets in much the expected way in the expected order.
I would also note that none of his actions todate expose a conspiracy.
They are each isolated from each other an unconnected.
Flynn seems to have gotten a sweethart deal which suggests that Mueller’s had was very weak.
That Mueller understood that the other stories about Flynn were either unprosecutable or not illegal. Regardless, they are now off the table.
More evidence of Bias at FBI DOJ.
Is directing FBI agents to not consider a terrorist attack a terrorist attack not “obstruction of justice” by the lefts ridiculously broad definition ?
Pick a standard – any standard. Define is clearly and apply it evenly to ALL.
Republican’s democrats. Trump, Clinton.
Lies Are Truth – the new Republican Mantra
(70% of Alabama Republicans believe the charges against Moore are fabricated)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/roy-moore-now-claims-he-knows-none-of-his-accusers-contradicting-his-earlier-defenses/article/2642549
I beleive it is “Truth is lies”.
I am not a republican.
I am not an alabama republican.
I think the fact that they are going to elect Moore is disturbing.
At the same time the left brought this on – that does not excuse the right.
But when one side makes up the rules as they go along all the time,
But expects the other to always play square.
Eventually the other says F#$k it
Polls show that we beleive the media is accurate about 25% of the time.
While I think it is the media is better than that, and there is a difference between distorted which they do constantly and flat out wrong which is rare,
Still it does not surprise me that Alabama republicans do not beleive the washington post.
Those on the left do not beleive James OKeeffe pretty much ever, even when he provides the raw video.
Separately atleast one of the Moore accusations has hit serious problems.
I think the accusation is true. But I think that it was embelished after the fact and the accuser got caught.
Regardless, discredit part of one, and people doubt them all.
Finally – Bill Clinton was elected President with a number of allegations of Sexual Harrasment.
Donald Trump was elected after the Access Hollywood tape.
Hillary won her party’s nomination after vile treatment of the women who accused Bill.
What we are seeing is the destruction of moral standards on the right.
Which makes them the same now as the left.
I would have prefered the opposite outcome, but this does not surprise me.
I would also suggest you think about what is going on in Washington.
Whether Trump survives or not, this is far from over.
If somehow Trump is impeached resigns or loses in 2020.
Those who elected him – and more will be back.
Only next time, they are playing by YOUR rules.
Your definition of obstruction of justice, your definitions of lies, your definitions of what is acceptable and what is not.
WE have seen this again and again.
I support the Fillibuster. But it is gone, and the last vestiges will die soon enough.
Both sides threatened, but the left killed it.
Money Laundering a prosecutable offense?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-deutsche-bank/deutsche-bank-receives-subpoena-from-mueller-on-trump-accounts-source-idUSKBN1DZ0XN
Jay yes money laundering is a prosecutable offense. But does it not make your afraid of government where we have laws and rules of investigation that the FBI, SBI’s and police have to follow, but SP’s do not.. A special investigator charged with ONE ISSUE (Russian collusion) and one issue only can run rough shod throughout the friends, family and life of the individual they are charged to investigate for that ONE ISSUE and investigate anything in their lives back for years until they find something they did illegally?
This crap has to end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Investigate the collusion and if there is no collusion, stop trying to justify your existence by finding something and ruining lives.
Maybe its time for a special investigator to begin looking into the real dealings of the Clinton Foundation. Then they could go back in Clintons past and investigate White Water and all the illegal trading she did with cattle and other activities before being FLOTUS.
Fine. Investigate the Clintons, once again.
But let’s concentrate on the clear and present danger first, of the buffoons NOW in Office .
GOOD GOD MAN!!!!
This is the kind of thinking that leads to coups and dictators! I can not believe you are fine with some one without any leash running all over people with subpoena power.
so please tell us what your red line is in investigating issues that come up.This is a man with limitless resources that can investigate anything that remotely touches the election. He can threaten families with criminal action if they forgot to answer a question on a form. He can bankrupt an individual through endless required autorney fees. And when the intelligence agencies are political, how can we insure entrapment has not occurred?
The “clear and present danger” are the efforts to reverse an election.
The McCarthy SC proposal is not a Clinton investigation. That is actually its genius.
He deliberately chose the Iran/Nuke deal.
That makes it the same bizzare unconstitutional counter intelligence criminal concoction that Mueller has been given.
Further while the Clinton’s and the U1 deal are atleast tangential targets, it targets a significant portion of the Obama administration – including tangentially Mueller himself.
And there is already far more actual evidence.
Finally, we prosecute crimes because they are crimes. Not because some victims are more or less important than others, or because some bad actors are more or less important than others.
Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to care about the status of the victim, the perpetrator or someones ideas of which things are more important.
The rule of law – not man.
Means we follow the law, without layering in personal values.
Money laundering is only a crime, if the money is the proceeds of a crime.
Mueller thoroughly botched this with respect to Manafort.
And he is near certainly going to lose – just as Preet Behar, did on a relatively similar over broadening of financial crimes laws a couple of years ago.
And in the unlikely event he does not, Well then we just burn down the entire left because they are up to their asses in “money laundering” – atleast defined this way.
This crap was addressed with respect to Manafort.
Money laundering requires that the money that is laundered is there profits from a crime.
The indictments against Manafort should have been for tax evasion, you can not launder legally earned money.
But the IRS refused to cooperate with Mueller – among other reasons because Manafort settled with the IRS in 2014.
This is more left wing bunk attempting to criminalize using money and a way that lefties do not like – which is pretty much any way.
AND I would further note you do not want to win on “money laundering” are somebody is going to burn the DNC, the Podesta Group, the Clinton foundation to the ground and jail everyone close to them – just for a start.
What does it take for you to grasp that when you expand the law nearly infinitely, it will ensnare you too ?
“There you go again”
Fake news. There is no subpeona of Trump records, just as Trump has said.
There may or may not be a subpeona of Deutche Bank, all we have is an assertion of a reporter that a source told them there was.
Regadless, according to the corrected story – Not Trump
Another male getting screwed by PC Harassment Witch Hunt Fever?
OK in the line of prostitution and Libertarian views on individual behaviors.
Who here thinks states should be allowed to oversee sports betting and not be a federal offense in all but two states? (SCOTUS has that before them now)
I agree with you Ron – Mike Hatcher
I do not think gambling should be illegal anyway.
It should not be a federal crime,
it should not be a state crime
and it should not have any special oversight.
I do think that states should be barred from running lotteries or other forms of gambling.
It is not their job and they are abysmal at it, and most state lotteries are ponzi schemes that are ultimately going to have to be bailed out by tax payers,
Worse they tend to be corrupt.
Well once again, your libertarianism is further libertarian than mine. We already have seen what happens with gambling when the private sector sets the rules. Nevada had to set rules after the mafia ran it in their state. And large cities saw what happened when the private sector controlled the numbers game.
I support states deciding if gambling within their borders should be legal ( states rights). I think the assholes in Washington DC need to stay out of business conducted within the states. And when I define business, I define that as a transaction that takes place within the borders of that state. As for sports betting, if that is online, I define the transaction occurring wherever I am located at the time I key in the transaction and place the bet.
But I do not trust the private sector because some of the same people conducting business in a forcefull manner are some of the same people that have money and connections to get elected to congress or the presidency. Or that happens in reverse. So I support state oversight of written regulations overseeing gambling in their state. It might not be 100%, but I think it cleans up criminal activity a lot.
No Nevada did not have to set the rules.
There are already laws against violence,
In the real world though – illegal gambling is actually more honest than government gambling.
Do you think anyone would bet with the mafia if they did not pay off ?
Further illegal gambling arrises when you bar legal gambling.
When you make something illegal – you do not make the demand go away, and you deprive those who provide the service of recourse to government to enforce agreements – which means they must enforce them through violence.
Why should gambling ever be illegal ? it is just another form of free exchange.
All that should be illegal is the use of violence.
The assholes in government need to stay out of business.
My state and local reps are at best marginally better than the federal ones.
You say “forceful” manner – the use of force in business is and should be ilegal.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-deutsche-bank/trump-lawyer-denies-deutsche-bank-got-subpoena-on-trump-accounts-idUSKBN1DZ0XN
So it appears there could be another “Fake News” report based on some just released news. One person reports ” anonymously” that Trumps records were subpeoned. No one has verified this.
But this sure as hell should convince ANY sucessful business person from seeking the office of president. So Trump borrows money from a German bank. Like all banks and lending institutions, that bak MIGHT HAVE sold thosemloans to smaller vanks or investment brokers. Those individuals MAY be located in Russia. So Trump HAS TO BE guilty od collusion sine the Russians have loans his companies need to repay.
SOMEONE HAS TO BE A COMPLETE IDIOT TO WANT TO BE PRESIDENT GIVEN THE TOXIC ENVIRONMENT IN POLITICS TODAY¡!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep, that is one part of the explanation of how we got trump, not so coincidentally, a complete idiot.
Its been this way a long loooong time. I read the history of England once. Most kings lived about as long in office as the attention span of a millennial. Except leaders did not get subpoenaed they got killed. Call it the “leader delusion”, a blind spot of alpha males. “I’m going to be leader! It will be great!”
So – the unverification is unverified as well, except from Suckitoff (did I spell his name wrong, sorry) whose words in the past have been proved unreliable.
Just have to wait and see what develops, or not.
There have been myriads of past stories of subpeona’s of Trump records.
It is possible that those rumors are/were true.
But we have ZERO evidence of that.
At the same time we do know – and even Comey testified that most of what is reported in the news regarding the Trump investigation is fiction.
One of the things we are learning is that Fussion GPS is heavily involved in feeding the media.
They have been feeding the news fake stories.
Even when it appears that something is going to come out that will help Trump or harm Clinton the DNC or them the leak the story ahead to a friendly reporter to get it out with favorable spin.
They apparently leaked the story of their own ties to the DNC and Elias – because an NYT reporter had the story and was closing in on verification, and so they leaked it to a WaPo reporter to get a favorable spin.
They also leaked information on who was paying them, in the hope of forestalling a House Subpeona of their bank records.
Maybe this is true, maybe it is not.
I would note that the majority of anti-Trump reporting has either been outright false or seriously distorted.
Conversely most of the Trump favorable reporting has proven to be true.
The spin on all of this is incredible.
As an example (of Spin not error). We have know that Flynn was a target half of forever.
We have known that Flynn misrepresented his calls to Kislyak in some small ways for almost a year.
We have known that Flynn was either being indicted or pleading for months.
We have known it was linkely Flynn was pleading for more than a month.
So the Plea occurs – we have been promised Logan Act Violations.
Kidnappings, Payoffs, all kinds of malfeasance on the part of Flynn,
We get a plea to a tiny variation on something we have known for nearly a year.
Flynn presuming he “cooperates” is off the hook for everything else, as well as likely his son.
That is how plea deals work.
While Mueller can threaten – Cooperate, is defined by the court not Mueller, and in this case would mean to provide testimony specifically related to the events described in the information part of the pleading. In this case that means Flynn must tell Mueller everything there is to tell about his after the election communications with Kislyak and all direction he received from the Trump team regarding that.
Flynn can of course talk more about anything he wants.
But as plea deals go this is a sweetheart deal.
Remember there is no penalty to either Flynn or Mueller for including far more in the information.
Flynn is immune from further prosecution based on the deal he and his lawyers worked out – not what is in the information. Normally prosecutors stuff everything and the kitchen sink into the information. Because the big use of a plea deal is to prosecute a conspiracy, and the information for the plea deal is the first best chance the prosecutor gets to lay out the conspiracy.
There are two risks to Trump at the moment:
One that Kushner “misstated” something to the FBI or in something sworn related to the Kislyak calls.
Two that Mueller is going to be so stupid as to actually try to prosecute the Logan act.
With respect to 1. As others have noted – Mueller has almost zero leverage on Kushner.
Flynn could be bled to financial ruin protecting himself and his son.
Kushner can not.
Based on what I am reading now, there is not a chance in hell Flynn could have been convicted of “lying to the FBI”.
Thus far Mueller has spent $5M. That is chicken feed to the Trumps.
It is highly unlikely Mueller can “flip” family, and regardless, there is still ZERO evidence of what Mueller was tasked to investigate.
“I would note that the majority of anti-Trump reporting has either been outright false or seriously distorted.”
Bull crap.
In Mr. Comey’s public testimony to congress he testified that nearly all of what he read in the news about this was false.
“Based on what I am reading now, there is not a chance in hell Flynn could have been convicted of “lying to the FBI”.”
Horse crap
Rep. Gowdy, a former prosecutor and a strong defender of Mueller stated that the only basis for the claim that Flynn lied is that he plead guilty. Because the facts and the information do not support that.
He further noted that was surprising because the plea made Flynn useless as a witness against Trump.
I would further note that every day we learn more. Now it turns out that Strzok conducted the FBI interviews of Mill and Abedin – in which they quite obviously lied about their knowledge and actions regarding Clinton’s private email server.
There is a fundimental difference though – Mill and Abedin were formally interviewed, the interview was scheduled in advance, and they were able to prepare and knew what to prepare for.
Flynn has about an hour notice that the FBI was stopping by, further the purpose of that visit was misrepresented – that he was being briefed by the FBI not questioned by them.
Flynn may not have know until after the fact that he was actually being questioned as part of an investigation
There are a number of elements required for ALL false statements crimes – you can look them up.
Several of those are not me.
“Flynn is immune from further prosecution based on the deal he and his lawyers worked out – not what is in the information. ”
Frog fart.
Read the full plea.
It stipulates additional prosecution open.
Cut and pasted from the very first page of the plea agreement
“3. Additional Charges
In consideration of your client’s guilty plea to the above offense, your client will not be
further prosecuted criminally by this Office ”
This is pretty standard. Flynn is not subject to further charges unless he violates the terms of the agreement.
Those terms are that he fully cooperates with the SC with respect to the “information” contained in the plea. Essentially it means that Flynn must provide Mueller everything he knows about his post election contacts with Kislyak – which would include information regarding who directed him and how did they direct him.
The thinness of the “information” has been noted by numerous lawyers and prosecutors.
It is typical for a prosecuter to paint the broadest possible “conspiracy” in the information,
because even though the plea protects the peading party from prosecutions that information accomplishes two things – it binds the pleader to cooperate with regard to that information, and it is the first actual evidence, and often the only evidence that a prosecutor may get that an actual conspiracy exists.
Flynn not only get a sweet hart deal, but contra many reports his required cooperation is very limited.
This is probably why Trump has been quite favorable to Flynn since the Plea.
The only danger to Trump this plea poses is if the people Flynn talked to regarding the communications with Kislyak have testified falsely regarding that communication.
More Scum Rises To The Surface
https://apnews.com/e4a63034bc344765b90adc27d75b6893
I am sure glad i do not live in Alabama, I hate to say this, but if someone put a gun to my head and I had to vote, I would have a hard time making that decision. In this article it says :
“Another Republican, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, sent a $100 check to Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones on Tuesday. He tweeted a picture of the check and the words, “Country over party.”
How can someone who is a Republican and supporter of Republican positions actually say the country will be better off with the liberal from Alabama. His voting for liberal progressive legislation can lead this country into more socialist type entitlement programs, more illegal immigration, more government regulation and more involvement of government in ones lives for years and years into the future.
On the other hand, one of the most despicable individuals is running to prevent everything that the liberal progressive candidate supports. He will be a vote to stop years of creeping socialism in the united states, he will support continued crack downs on illegal immigrants in the country, he will support reduced regulation and reduced involvement of government in peoples lives.
So the choice comes down to a possible takeover of the senate by Shumer in 2018 and his progressive agenda that will harm the country for years (much like all the Obama crap) or the seating of a former sexual predator with extreme social values that support infringing on rights of selected minority groups.
I guess I would have two choices. Close my eyes and blindly choose one of them to avoid being shot, or refusing to vote and being shot. Given the choices, I suspect the second alternative would be best. Both alternatives turn my stomach, but for different reasons.
Ron Bishop for Senator!!!!
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/alabama_libertarian_announces.html
Ok that would solve my problem with a gun to my head and being forced to vote. Thanks for saving me😀!!!
But why didnt the Libertarians make sure they got someone on the ballot before needing a late write in. If you want something bad enough, you can just about accomplish anything Trump shows this to be true. They coukd get 3% signitures needed if they work hard enough.
Where there ‘s a will there’s a way.
It is difficult to get on the ballot in most of the country – that is one of the reasons why the Libertarian party is the only party beyond democrats and republican with 50 state presidential ballot access.
But much the same amount of work needs done for each office.
Further Alabama is not a libertarain stonghold.
In my state, most offices – down to the local ones, have libertarain candidates when there is a national election and many on off years.
And on rare occasions libertarains actually get elected.
3% is ALOT of signatures.
“How can someone who is a Republican and supporter of Republican positions actually say the country will be better off with the liberal from Alabama.”
The fact you’re having trouble understanding that is troublesome.
Was the4 nation better off with Bill Clinton – a rapist and serial sexual assaulter as president ?
Sorry, Jay, but the question as to what is better for Alabama and the country is a legitimate one and an open one. I have not answered it the same as Ron, but I have no problems with his position.
As in 2016 – we do not always get the choices we want and we have to chose between bad alternatives.
“The fact you’re having trouble understanding that is troublesome. ”
Jay, That is because you support the progressive agenda like Obamacare, excessive regulations, high taxes leading to companies relocating to Ireland and other EU countries with 1\2 the taxes that Jones supports and I don’t.
Moore is temporary. Whatever the voters decide. Legislation is permanent. Once programs are put into place, they rarely get terminated.
“Jay, That is because you support the progressive agenda like Obamacare, excessive regulations, high taxes leading to companies relocating to Ireland and other EU countries with 1\2 the taxes that Jones supports and I don’t.”
Ron, I don’t catagorically support any of the above.
I’m a moderate, and take middle ground stances when possible.
For example, I was against the implementation of Obamacare.
I predicted it would be disruptive in the ways it turned out to be disruptive.
BUT I was in favor of the concert of striving for inclusive health insurance for everyone. What the dickhead Republicans are doing to dismantle it is worse than the current version.
You however, appear to be mired in the same partisan propagandistic slogans we’ve heard from the right for decades.
I don’t have time to discuss this now.
The dangerous So Cal fires are approaching the city where my daughter lives, and I may have to help evacuate her, if it gets much closer.
Jay, prayers for your daughter. Many years ago I lived east of LA and witnessed wildfires in the mountains from LA to San Bernadino. But I never remember fires coming down the hills into neighborhoods and buring down so many residential areas.
After your daughter is safe and settled after the fires, how about a debate on issues to see where we both support as right now with your constant reposting of Trump crap and support of unfettered independent investagator powers, I see you as a Warren/Sanders/Pelosi//Shumer democrat and you see me as a Bannon/Cruz Republican. I doubt either of us are those things. But I bet when we find out, you will be much, much more trusting of government than I am.
Predicting obamacare would fail is a no brainer.
Eliminating PPACA is quite obviously not worse than what we have.
We had no PPACA before.
There was no health outcome differences.
There was less cost.
Most people call that better.
I am a registered Republican, have never contributed to any political candidate, and I just sent $50 to Doug Jones. Flake gave me the idea.
Why not the libertarian that supports many more positions republicans support than the liberal democrat. That would support someone taking votes from Moore and have the same effect of electing Jones, while providing resources to candidates who support many positions moderates support. (Many more than the extremes in bothnparties like those running in Alabama)
Jay, that is serious stuff. I hope you your daughter comes through safely. I wish everyone there will come through safely.
Jay, in case you run out of excrement appellations: weasel turd.
🤗
More perjorative terms will certainly improve the dialog.
Ron, I don’t trust libertarians (especially the extreme one here on TNM) and their support of many of the Reps positions may not suit me as I am pro choice, anti gun, like Nixon, pro environment, etc.
That don’t make me a Dem, even though living in NYC is like being in a liberal bubble. I still abhor the cradle to grave Mom state and snowflakes and Dems hypocrisy.
I just want to start my campaign against Moore, lemming-like Reps, and the very dangerous Bannon.
dduck, So I may agree with you on Libertarianism. I only associate with this party as the other two spend too much time in peoples personal lives and money.
So call me a constitutionalist.
Freedom of speech. No one should be banned from speaking at any site that accepts or is funded by federal funds. (Most all universities accept some forms of federal funds.
Guns. No legislation controlling the guns. Change the constitution if there is a need to control guns.
Abortion. That is a privacy issue. I am not pro life or pro choice. I am pro privacy. That is a choice only the woman can make.
Environment. I support being secure in ones home. Overreach by federal agencies when someone decides a puddle is wetland is unacceptable.
And there are other issues. Like I have said many times, those leaning left are much more trusting of government than I am. I believe if you crack into the constitution through legislation, the barn door will fly open to further infringement on constitutional rights (ie, executive orders that now end up regulations).
dduck;
Though all libertarians are not identical – just as all conservatives and progressives are not either,
And you are free to trust who ever you please.
An important element of trust is consistency, and predictability.
I may not share the same values as you,
But you can predict my values and positions from my principles, quite accurately – and if you can not, then your skills at logic and reason are poor, because I am highly predictable.
As are nearly all libertarians – even if we are not identical.
Disagreeing on positions is not the same as untrustworthy.
Libertarains are split on abortion – just as the country is and for much the same reasons.
Some libertarians are pro-choice some are pro-life.
That strongly depends on whether they beleive that a fetus is human.
Most libertarians oppose gun control – it is a restriction on liberty, and another reflection of the stupidity of the left that people (not circumstances or widgets) are responsible for their own choices. With freedom comes responsibility. The left denies both.
The 19th century precursors of libertarianism – Thoreau, Emerson, … are also the earliest “environmentalists”.
What distinguishes libertarians from the left on the environment is we are not nuts.
We have generally not bought malthusian end of the world fallacies.
We understand that the world improves because people – not governments choose to improve the world, and that all improvement is inextricably linked to improved standard of living.
You do not get a better environment from more laws.
You get it from more wealth.
I know those on the left can not grasp that, but the data is near absolute.
Separately just like everyone else we do not always have the choices we want.
Libertarians tend to break republican about 60/40 – why ? Because republicans are generally the lessor evil. None of us are happy about voting republican when we do, or voting democrat when we do that. Most of us do not vote libertarain – or libertarains would be in the televised debates.
There is a libertarian party, and those in it are libertarains, but most libertarians are not part in the party.
Moore has absolutely no redeeming value.
I am as Irrate as anyone that he will likely get elected.
Do not confuse predicting that with supporting it.
Bannon, Trump, long list of other republicans – are right on some things and wrong on others.
Same with democrats.
Frankly I was very disturbed because Warren campaigned against the ExIm bank,
but when the freedom caucus came close to killing it Warren worked with other democrats and republicans to save it.
That is my idea of “untrustworthy” – you can not count on democrats to do what they say – whether you agree with it or not.
In the recent Tax fight – democrats made a big deal about the republicans being the party of the rich. But look at the actual demographics – it is the democrats that are overwhelmingly the party of the rich. Further this tax cut is heavily skewed to the middle class.
While I will personally appreciate the cut.
Economically that is useless.
Anyway I disagree with Bannon on most things – but not everything.
As a result of his departure from the whitehouse – we are still in afghanistan and will be for alot longer.
Are you capable of supporting someone you do not like on those few issues where you agree ?
I am.
We get a constant anti-Trump tirade as if we are also stupid and do not know Trumps faults, or as if you are ever going to sell the nonsense that Trump is wrong on absolutely everything – because “argh!! Trump!!!”.
He is not quite as despicable a person as Bill Clinton,
Thus far he is proving to be a slightly better president.
That is not a rigning endorsement.
But I am not sure the country could survive another nice person, but lousy president.
Though that certainly was not a possibility in 2016.
OK republicans had a cow when Conyers was accused of sexual misconduct, Pelosi poo pooed the issue and they called for his resignation almost immediately when they found he paid $27,000 in taxpayer money to settle the claim. About the same time Farenthold, a republican member was outed for sexual misconduct and he had paid $84,000 in hush money, but the same call from leadership for his resignation was not called for.
So do these dip shi%$ in congress really think Americans are that stupid to not notice the difference. Americans may not give a damn what congressional members are doing, but how about being fair in who we ask to resign.
Democrats didnt care one hoot about Clinton. Republicans could care less about Trump. The GOP at the time went bananas and now the Donkeys are going bananas about Trump.
Its about time they just come out and say “we dont care”
GOP – feh.
“At least 12 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transition. There were at least 19 face-to-face interactions with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures. There were at least 51 communications — meetings, phone calls, email exchanges and more.”
“If the Trumpites and the Putinites weren’t communicating about how to subvert Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign, what were they talking about? Their favorite brands of vodka? And if there was an innocent explanation for all of these contacts, why is it that everyone in the Trump campaign, from the president on down, has lied and lied and lied about them?”
Maybe they’re natural born liars…
GOP: LIES ARE TRUTH
If you read your article – its sources is another media outlet at some other time.
In this case CNN some time ago.
As noted Comey has already said that little to nothing in the media at the time he testified was correct.
My guess is that FP is echoing CNN that is echoing the Steele dossier.
In otherwords Crap several layers removed.
Thus far prior to the election we have no contact between the Trump Campaign and the actual russian government – except for the fact that Sessions and Kislyak aparently attended a couple of public events together.
It is possible if we knew absolutely everything about absolutely everybody that we would have a few more of the same thing. Flynn likely attended some public function that was also attended by someone from Russia.
Cater page has denied under oath just about everything in the Steele Dossier concerning him.
Quite some time ago.
If he had lied under oath Mueller would have eaten him alive.
Mueller is forcing plea deals for the weakest of misrepresentation, that compellingly proves that anything stronger is unlikely.
Papadoulis plead for inaccurately reporting the timing of a meeting with a “fake” russian.
Papadoulis never met any real russians.
Natlalia increasingly looks like a Fusion GPS “dirty trick” She met with Simpson immediately before and after the Trump Jr. meeting. She gave the Trump’s dirt on a donor to the Clinton campaign – which is politically useless.
Page had far fewer meetings that reported, and they were all business meetings, with people who are NOT part of the russian government.
If we are going to count any countact with anyone who is a russian business person as campaign collusion then the Clinton campaign goes to Hell.
Remember that stuff about using the same standards to evaluate both parties ?
If you put everything we can prove about Trump and Russia on one side of a scale and everything we can prove about Clinton and Russa on the other, the Clinton side drops to the floor.
The answer to your hypothetical is “they were not talking” PERIOD.
But lets assume the hypothetical. Trump has business ventures in Russia – as has been noted HERE, Trump was contemplating a Trump Tower in Russia. That project did nto get very far and died in early 2016, but most certainly it involved legitimate business communications with Russia.
Separately the Miss Universe Pagent was held in Moscow in 2013 and Trump was incredibly deeply involved in that. Do you think that involved no contact with anyone with a Russian Surname ?
Further it is also known that Some of Trump’s business loands and investments are in russia.
There is a great deal of reasons for Trump to have contact with Russia, in fact there is even reasons for Trump to have had contact with the actual Russian government.
If Trump had actually been in a conspiracy with Russia it would have been Trivial to concoct a legitimate visible reason for Trump to communicate – even visit Russia, as a Front for your hypothetical activities.
But there was no front and there was not actual contact.
All that we have is two separate attempts to pedal this fake dirt on Clinton.
Further both were late in the campaign – long after the DNC leak.
Why is it that Natalia is meeting Trump Jr. to give them fake dirt, that Trump Jr. has high hopes for AFTER Russia has purportedly done its worst deeds – when if there was a conspiracy there already have been high level communications and secure channels.
Why is Trump Jr. talking to Natalia, when Trump Sr. could more easily have contacted Vlad directly ?
But god forbid you should expect anything to make sense.
Also do you really believe that Trump went to enormous efforts to conspire with Putin to place 6500 in facebook adds ?
Trump could have dumped a couple of million on Social media without batting an eye.
Even if he wanted to hide it, it would have been far simpler for Trump to use fake accounts created in the US to do hat you think Putin did – and BTW badly.
Like the idiotic dirt on Clinton that no american would take seriously the Russia Social Media Presence rather than sophisticated was retarded.
So now you are arguing that yokels had there vote changed by pictures of potatoes that looked like Clinton ?
I have no idea what you think “subvert hillary clintons campaign means”
But we KNOW that Clinton subverted Sanders Campaign.
And we KNOW that Clinton and the FBI worked with Russia to attempt to subvert Trump’s campaign, and that after the election they worked together to subvert the legitimacy of the election.
It was noted more recently that the Steele Dossier was almost unreported until after the election. Most of the media would not touch it, there were few references to it and few of the stories in it prior to the election.
The Steele Dossier finally made the news when James Comey breifed Trump on it.
That was actually a political dirty trick. By briefing Trump Comey made it possible for the press to report on it and there suddenly was a flurry of stories.
Anyway, ignoring all the above, if all this stuff you claim really happened,
How about NAMES and DATES ?
Myriads of Trump surogates have actually testified or been interviewed by the FBI or both.
If they have lied – that would have been easy to prove.
They would be pleading right now or already in jail, or at the very least indicted.
Further paralell to Mueller – most of this has gone to both the House and Senate committees – which leak like a seive.
Within a few Days we know everyone Strzok interviewed in the past 2 years.
Do you think that dozens of meetings with Russia have been that well hidden from all of us ?
You are quite litterally peddling “fake news”
I got off on a musical tangent here, glad I did. Posted the Vengerov Master class link with all of its captured joy. Glad I did.
Guys, excuse me if I am about to get preachy, but commenting on politics (following politics in excruciating detail) is like playing computer games. Its an addiction. I am sure that it ties into exactly the same areas of the brain and the same neural patterns that playing a computer game does. Its an addiction.
We have so many other possibilities. We are all people with spare time on our hands trying to find something to do with our mind to keep life interesting.
Words I would use to describe the emotions that politics engages:
Envy
Resentment
Outrage
Fear
Greed
Bitterness
Anger
Revenge
Frustration
Why, oh why, do we do it?
There are real turn ons in life, family, friends, music, building something, making something, cooking, travel, helping someone, reading a good book, going fishing, walking in the woods. Once can visit a nursing home, volunteer at the local animal shelter, volunteer in many ways….
Those things capture us in a different way than the negative addictive things that feed of our anger and fear.
We have choice. Why is it less engaging to choose the positive things?
I would suggest to everyone here to listen to some kind of music that they love through a great stereo once a day, but that is just me. Ron might build something, Dave might read a philosophy book, everyone has something better more soul satisfying available to them than climbing down into the mud pit of politics.
Would anyone lying on their deathbed regret that they did not spend more time immersed in politics?
Why is it so hard to tame the brain?
We could address this by either:
ignoring politics and allowing those in washington to rape pillage and burn us as they please.
I might trust republicans more than democrats – but not much.
Limiting the scope of government and therefore limiting the role of politics in our lives.
———–
With respect to the rest, though each of us shares the problem – though not to the same extent.
The problem is NOT with politics, it is with ourselves.
I am constantly hearing that Trump divides us – aside from ignoring that the polls show the recent divisions started in 2009 and were at the worst before the election.
Regardless, we divide ourselves.
You toss off that everything is partisan – is if that excuses discerning what the truth is.
None of the following is “libertarian” or “extreme”.
Given multiple choices it IS possible to know to rank them in order of probability of truth.
It is possible to reject many as demonstrably false.
It is not moral to impose your will on another through force without justification.
that is a near universal principle. It is not a libertarian principle.
What constitutes sufficient justification for force is what determines ideology.
If you do not want political conflict – confine politics – government to our near universally shared values.
Politics becomes bitter when one tribe seeks to impose its will on the other by force.
You can not have both political harmony and advance your own political agenda – whatever that agenda is – without near universal support for that agenda.
You can not force others to believe what you want – you must persuade them.
Jay, you have stated that you are not concerned with Mueller having unrestricted investigative power, using any and all tactics to lead to some indictment regardless to its association to Russian collusion.
There have been many reports I heard this morning and read in the local paper that states the committee in the House has requested, sued and gone to court to obtain FBI inormation on certain people they were investigating. When they received that data, it was so redacted, they could not make sense of the words remaining. They were also refusing to give other information and finally relented.
So another question. Do you believe the FBI and Mueller should be able to restrict information from congress when they want to do that if congress is also investigating the same potential crime? James Madison, while a representative from Virginia stated the “House should possess itself of the fullest information in order to doing justice to the country and to public officers.” Later, during another situation,a ” resolution to create a select committee, authorized “to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.”
Is the FBI adhering to thi thinking?
There is no basis at all for the executive to restrict information about its actions from congress.
There is a very small basis for restricting information on deliberations – i.e. the president should not have to devulge the advice a cabinet member gave but everything that he did as a result.
There are national security reasons to require that the congressmen receiving classified informnation have a security clearance, and reason to prosecute them if they violate that.
Beyond that – the executive does nto get to decide what congress can see.
Democrats, republicans I do not care.
Dave this is the answer I would expect from you. I agree. But I want to know what our more left leaning “member” thinks the power of the FBI or special prosecutor should have.r
It is nearly impossible to get them to commit to any limits on anything – unless it is repblicans investigating democrats – then everything is a witch hunt and actually lying under oath is not a crime.
While I beleive in the real constitutional civil/.criminal rights positions being argued by Derschowitz, Turley and McCarthy on occasion,
and I beleive them consistently – democrats, republicans, peodophiles, drug dealers.
at the same time – atleast for the purposes of debate I am prepared to agree to anhy standard that is applied universally.
If Trump asking Comey to let Flynn slide is obstruction – then Obama telling everyone while the investigation was ongoing that clinton was innocent is also.
Give them adjoining cells.
If Flynn is guilty – so are Adedin and Mill – actually they are more guilty. Mill in particular is guilty of destruction of evidence.
If Trump is guilty of Collusion with Russia – whatever the Hell that is then Clinton is too.
Pick and issue, any issue. Treat Republicans and democrats the same, and you will have less conflict with me.
After the election I advocated here that Obama should pardon Clinton and her staff, and that if he Did not Trump should. And then we should step past all this and move on.
But no! We had to wreak havoc on the past year because the left lost an election they thought they won and have no clue why. Nearly as important they do not understand that merely winning would change very little. The left has pissed off half the electorate. Pissing off only 45% changes little.
I could have spent the last year joining the left in opposing the actually egregious things Trump sought to do – though mostly he has not tried to do the really egregious things he promised.
Jay and Roby do not seem to grasp that it is possible to hate Trump and still agree on some issues.
Dave “Jay and Roby do not seem to grasp that it is possible to hate Trump and still agree on some issues.”
That seems to be caused by the difference between hate that brings emotion into the equation compared to a dislike for someone.
I disliked Bill Clinton based on his personal lifestyle. But, I thought he was a fairly good president, working with congress on some good legislation that would never see the light of day in this environment.
I like many of the things Trump is doing. Tax reform. Not middle class and should not be sold like that by GOP, but makes our corporations from moving to the lower taxed EU.
Immigration. Illegal crossing way down. Deportation way up. The laws are being enforced. If you dont agree with the actions, then change the laws.
DACA. He has thrown this back to congress where it belongs, forcing them to do something.
Jerusalem. In 1995, congress overwhelmingly passed legislation ( resolution?) that stated this is capital of Israel and the embassy would be moved. To appease the peace process that never happened . Trump is calling the bluff of all concerned and forcing the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith. Congress can vote to reverse their actions if they dont like it.
North Korea, you negotiate from a position of strength. First president to make this decision.First he has to convince the Chinese that he will take military action before they really put the screws to Shorty.
As for Trump as a person, I think he is despicable, I would not let him in my house, I would not attend any activity he was part of, no matter if he is President or not. Same with Bill and Hillary.
I would guess that it is more likely because – inside the public sphere libertarains react very strongly to reason and very weakly to emotion in decision making.
I more than dislike Trump or Clinton. They are despicable in their treatment of women.
Clinton is smoother, but also more malignant,
But neither is a good person.
But Clinton (outside of foreign policy where he was a failure) was a good president.
Trump has the potential to be as good, maybe better.
I do nto like the tax reform bill, there is a lot wrong with it. But it is much better than where we are.
I am actually able to compromise.
But we do need to follow with spending cuts.
I am not where you are on immigration.
I understand that we can reasonably expect to exclude people who intend to destroy us.
I do not beleive we are obligated to offer immigrants citizenship, and absent entitlement reform we must be very careful about what entitlements we allow immigrants.
But I do not otherwise think we should be wasting resources to stop immigrants.
DACA should be passed – but WITHOUT an automatic path to citizenship.
But I will agree with you that when the law and the constitution are consistent – we must change the law and/or the constitution.
I have no problem with Trump’s moves on Israel.
I think progress in the mideast is actually possible.
Regardless, I do not think that we freeze time waiting for the palestinians to come to the table.
I honestly thing the Israeli’s should end negotiations.
Decide what constitutes the state of Israel, and say F$#k it to the Plaistinineans, you want a country, what is left is yours.
I think the rest of the world would jump and scream for a while.
But I think in the end there would be a palestinian state, and many of Israel’s issues with other countries would slowly diminish.
We are in an incredibly dangerous position with NK.
Trump did NOT get us there, presidents from atleast Clinton through Obama did that.
I am scared shitless that Trump is handling NK. ‘
But I do not have a better answer than he has.
No one knows what is going to work – or not.
It might be an unsolveable problem.
Trump is atleast not shoving it under the rug.
Dave “I am not where you are on immigration.”
One may have different thoughts on immigration. What I am totally against is active laws being ignored by federal and state law enforcement due to dictates from a president or governor that circumvents the law on the books.
They are elected to enforce the laws of the state or federal government. If they dont like the law ,CHANGE THE LAW, dont act like your a dictator!
Ron
We are absolutely on the same page regarding the law.
I WANT all laws, even BAD LAWS that I loathe vigorously enforced.
One of the most effective ways to get rid of bad law is to enforce it.
We do not work very hard to get rid of laws that are rarely enforced.
Rarely enforced laws are just a cudgel that law enforcement can beat you with if you piss the wrong person off.
All laws must be enforced with as little discretion as possible.
Then we need to get rid of the stupid policies – there are not actual laws
barring jurrors from being informed about jury nullification.
In the colonies in the 18th century the british allowed colonial lawyers to argue to juries that a law was bad law and that even if it had been violated they could still choose to find the defendant not guilty.
Jury nullification is a central premise to western law dating back almost to the magna carte.
Yet in the US not only can;t a lawyer ever mention jury nullification to a jury, but private citizens can not pass out flyers informing juorrs that they are NOT obligated to follow the law.
In fact judges ALWAYS tell the jury they are REQUIRED to follow the law, even if they think the law is bad. That standard juror instruction is actually a LIE.
When a case is turned over to a jury – it is theirs to decide – period. For whatever reasons they wish. They are told that they may only decide the facts, but they are still free to pass judgemrnt on the law.
It is very odd – because jury nullification is firmly ensconced in our law. Even the supreme court recongnizes and blesses it.
But you are prohibited from talking about it.
A jury can do it. It just can never know it can do it.
Roby, ‘ole friend, try not to be envious, resentful, frustrated, anger, bitter, fearful, vengeful, and full of outrage! Did I miss any? lol.
Spare time? I’m stealing time away from important tasks to pop in here. I am nuts to pop in here. Why do we do it? Oh why do we do it?
Of course we each do it for different reasons and also for some of the same reasons.
Jay does it to vent, and to try to come to grips with his secret admiration for Trump.
Dave does it for everyone else’s sake. He has a big, warm heart and is searching for a few principles to believe in.
dduck has been waiting patiently for an opportunity to mention “weasel turds”.
But seriously…
Possible real reasons:
1. There aren’t too many other places to express semi-thoughtful and thoughtful opinions. In real life our culture has drifted to perfunctory conversations (e.g. football for the men, home design ala HGTV for the women) or has us isolated and separated. Other places online are forerunners to “Idiocracy” and quickly degenerate into attacks.
2. History is playing itself out right in front of us, and we are testing our opinions to understand it (?)
3. We are all a little nuts.
4. I can’t have an intelligent moderate conversation with relatives or partisan Friends.
OK, Trump is a weasel turd. Sorry Jay, my hand was forced.
Actually I got the term from Bernard Corwells books- love them.
Great post, Pat. We probably are all a little nuts.
Or, to paraphrase Edgar Allan Poe, we have become a little nuts, with long intervals of horrible sanity….
I have stayed out of the daughter/prostitution fray.
I have passed on discussing the FBI investigations, allegations, indictments, and other political accusations playing out in the so-called news.
I have my own investigation and indictment going on here at TNM regarding the “intellectual boxer,” the Black Knight, a.k.a. Deluge Dave!
Dave, you have referred to yourself here as an “intellectual boxer”. Well you’d better continue sparing and maybe chase a live chicken around (Rocky I reference) because we’re going to go at it again, using logic and reasoning.
Scheduled battle date: Sunday, December 10, 2017
Place: TNM
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming…
sparring
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/363387-no-one-is-above-the-law
So how goes the war on drugs ?
What is not obvious from the abstract is that bogus adjustments being made to tidal gauge data introduced false sea level rise when it did not occur.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Kind of speaks for itself
The same is true of colleges.
“On March 2, Comey testified to a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee that, while Flynn may have had some honest failures of recollection during the interview, the agents who questioned him concluded that he did not lie.”
This is actually quite bizzarre as it effectively exhonerates Strzok and Comey,
at the very same time as it proves political bias, on the part of Mueller
Nonesense.
Are you saying that was not Comey’s testimony ?
Sorry Jay. I am not making this up.
The testimony speaks for itself.
So what?
He pled TO lying.
You know, admitted it.
You saying Flynn’s lying about lying?
Duh!
People plead guilty to things they did not do all the time.
You think it is OK to threaten someone’s family and life to threaten them with insurmountable legal bills to avoid fighting clearly bogus charges ?
That is TEXTBOOK prosecutorial misconduct.
Unfortunately is it pretty common.
BTW nearly every single exonerated death row inmate “confessed”.
You do not get on the exonerated list – because you get off on a technicality.
You ONLY get there is you are subsequently PROVEN innocent – and usually that requires establishing who actually committed the crime.
Regardless, I do not place much weight in a coerced confession
I am not “saying” Flynn is lying about lying. It is actually a fact.
Even Strzok said that Flynn’s remarks were not false.
Further, Mueller getting Flynn to plead to a 18 usc 1001 violation is textbook stupid.
When you plead to “lying” your future testimony is near worthless.
Because you have admitted not merely that you lie but that you lie when you are required to tell the truth.
You do not plead someone to 19 usc 1001 if you expect to use them as a witness.
“The fact that an FBI agent involved in the Clinton emails investigation was reportedly a partisan Democrat is not in itself damning.”
Correct.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454413/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-justice-department
Strzok should be awarded a Medal Of Patriotism.
And the gratitude of the nation.
The next Democratic Prez in 2020 should promote him to run the agency.
The statute of limitations for crimes tRUMP committed before he was elected will still be in effect (money laundering, anyone?) and the agencies Sneaky Don has badmouthed like the FBI will pounce on his crooked ass.
You still do not understand what Money Laundering is – but then neither does Mueller.
It is near certain that Trump is not guilty of and can not be convicted of money laundering.
That would require him to make the money as a result of a crime.
The thing you are actually likely addressing is tax evasion.
There are likely an army of accountants and lawyers involved in preparing Trump’s tax return.
You are never getting him on Tax evasion.
Regardless the Deutche bank subpeona story has been walked back – corrected, it is fake news.
Elswhere I found an interesting observation regarding the culture in the FBI.
The vast majority of the rank and file agents are still relatively conservative.
But the ranking agents and managers are near universally left of center.
You may find that the FBI will celebrate if Trump purges their managers.
While the fact that Strzok told Comey that Flynn had not lied makes me think more favorably of Strzok. The Clinton investigation was botched.
When you have a long list of decisions that all go one way – that is bias.
If he did not want demoted – he shoudl have done his job.
I would note that Sally Yates argued that Flynn could be “blackmailed” my Russia because he “lied” to Pense, that was a ludicrous claim.
Say Kislyak comes to Flynn and says – “give me the nuclear codes or I will tell the vice president you lied to him.”
Flynn – “F#$k you, and the horse you rode in on. its a job, that is all”
Strzok might well have been an exception intelligence agent.
He still botched one investigation and is jepharizing another.
I would also note that the FBI is still straightlaced enough that Adultery is likely to get you demoted all by itself.
Regardless, Ztrzok brought all this on himself.
But like a typical left wing nut, you do not grasp that when you cause your own problems, you do not get to be the victiim.
Here I will disagree with McCarthy – though not specifically on Strzok.
There are TWO issues.
Both Comey and Strzok concluded that Flynn had not violated the law – had not lied.
That makes Mueller, not Strzok biased.
That said the facts of the Strzok interview are entrapment – making Mueller look even worse.
I would further note this came out as a consequence of an even larger IG investigation into the FBI handling of the Clinton investigation.
The results of that are due in December.
If there’s Nothing To Hide….?
“Trump Jr. cites attorney-client privilege in not answering panel’s questions about discussions with his father
By KYLE CHENEY 12/06/2017 07:37 PM EST
Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday cited attorney-client privilege to avoid telling lawmakers about a conversation he had with his father, President Donald Trump, after news broke this summer that the younger Trump — and top campaign brass — had met with Russia-connected individuals in Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign.”
“https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/donald-trump-privilege-questions-284841”
Jay,, (Second Try, damn Word Press)
Jay, I would not answer any of their question either. I would find every legal loophole to jump through I possibly could.
You trust government, I do not. They could asked a question, he could answer it, they have written record. Then the FBI questions him, asked the same question in a slightly different format, he answers it, they have a written record.
They get panels record and compare it. BINGO HE LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now he is in for years of investigation, threats, and any other force the FBI and Muller can imagine to flip Donald Jr. Not because he lied, but because his answers did not follow a script and there was something slightly different they could hold over him.
Again, you trust Muller and the government not to entrap someone. I do not!
I’ ‘trust’ government on a case by case basis, sometimes they get it right, sometimes wrong.
With Mueller, I’m trusting he does whatever’s necessary to rid the nation of Cancerous Donnie and Family.
Ever hear of Al Capone?
A thug, a killer, a bootlegger who corrupted the entire city of Chicago – police and courts included. The Feds were charged with investigating him, and bringing him down. They couldn’t get evidence to convict on bootlegging, murdering, or corrupting public officials. So they got him instead for tax evasion.
If that was today you’d probably be bitching about the prosecutors exceeding their charged authority: how dare they investigatie and prosecute anything but bootlegging, murder, and corruption!
In the Mueller investigation, far as I’m concerned the ends justify the means. You may be content to leave in office an habitual liar, a money launderer, a vagina grabbing Buffoon, a collaborator with foreign governments hostile to the US – but if evidence surfaces to show ANY of those behaviors are varifiable, I don’t care how Mueller or any of his investigators uncovers it. A President who is EXEMPT from the ordinary laws of the land that you and I are in legal jeopardy if we break, needs MORE prosecutorial scrutiny than ordinary citizens.
Before tRUMP ran for President the FBI and other agencies had dossiers on his associations with Russians and organized crime figures. You suggesting it would have been responsible for them to ignore that?
Dump the Schlump!
Medals for those who assist accomplishing it!
Jay, you make a good arguement. (Al Capone)
However, there is one difference. The FBI answers to the justice department. In most all investigations, there are two investigators who send their findings to 5 supervisory type FBI agents who review those findings. If they agree, those are sent to a prosecutor who reviews the findings and sends those findings to a grand jury to recommend an indictment or not.
A Special Council(mueller) is not bound by all these reviews. He has almost unfettered authority to investigate and send findings to a grand jury without oversight. Unless he wants “to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation”, he has no one to oversee his work. And in my thinking, you could almost tie almost anything to “new matters”. He can threaten and force deals without going to a prosecutor first.
If there is something to investigate, let the proper authorities investigate. If you accept that Comey investigated Clinton fairly and thoroughly, then why would the FBI not investigate Trump thoroughly using acceptable investigative procedures.
One of the things that is coming out that is damaging to Mueller but Not Strzok,
Is that Strzok and Comey has already decided there was no case against Flynn.
Comey testified to that
So we have a FBI agent and an FBI director who was fired by Trump,
who determined there was no obstruction, and a new special prosecutor says,
nope, their wrong, go hang him ?
Sorry, no false statement, not no obstruction
If there is this wide a difference fo oppinion over whether Flynn’s statement was false.
It can not and should not be a crime.
tRUMP is ten times more detrimental to this nation’s safety, welfare, future than Capone ever was.
Laurels to those who ensnare him for ANY illegal acts he’s committed
“tRUMP is ten times more detrimental to this nation’s safety, welfare, future than Capone ever was.”
And the evidence of that is that you do not like him. That is all.
“Laurels to those who ensnare him for ANY illegal acts he’s committed”
Thus far there is absolutley ZERO evidence of anything illegal.
We remain investigating your HOPE that you will find something.
We have actual crimes with respect to the prior administration,
Completely ignoring partisnaship issues the record of the FBI – or the government in general is abysmal.
Regardless why is your trust on a “case by case” basis ?
Are people who are incompetent on Tuedsay, competent on Thursday ?
Are people who are biased on Monday, non-partisan on Friday ?
While one would expect variations in competance and bias through government.
One would not expect it on a “case by case” basis.
If the VA can not manage case loads, then it is highly likely that similar issues exist throughout government.
All parts of the federal government are staffed by much the same people, the same civil service system, the same bad incentives.
While one should not expect exactly the same problems from division to division.
We should expect problems that are rooted in the causes that we can expect to be uniform throughout the government.
We have a massive problem in academia right now, that manafests itself in the crap going on at Wilfred Laurrie (I know that is canada), Evergree, Middlebury, Berkeley, .
It is the consequence of academia going from 4:1 left/right to 17:1 from 1970 to the present.
That shift not merely moves the academy left, it even moves the left, further left, and it makes the left portion of the academy more homogenous and more intolerant – particularly of deviation within its own. The rare conservative academic has more actual academic freedom that a left leaning academic – the conservative will get about the same reaction no matter what. But the left academic will get tarred and feathered for small deviations from dogma.
Government is not 19:1 left/right. at those levels of homogenity the peer and ideological pressures are bot enormous – and from the inside seem almost invisible. The people in government have little or no experience with conservatives or conservatism. “those people” are alien to them – they can not see them as human.
Look at your own posts – you are a reflection of that problem.
The more insular you get the easier it is to demonize the other.
It works the same for both the left and right.
But in the real world today – most republicans live in “pink” parts of the country – they out number democrats in their homes, but only by a little, but most democrats live in tiny highly populated dark blue enclaves. They do not know anyone who is a republican, and if they do that person probably will not admit it.
In that environment demonizing, name calling becomes easy. So long as you do not have to look the “other” in the face, it is easy to call them “deplorable”, hating hateful haters,
We have seen what happens when the academy skews to far one direction,
We have seen what happens in regions where the electorate skews too far one direction.
Why would you think government is different ?
I would note – this is not uniquely a left problem – when and where we skew 20:1 right left we will see the same thing in reverse. but today the left and certain institutions are homogenous and insular to the left, not right.
Government – whether left or right and whether biased or not has the wrong incentives for competence – please learn something about “public choice”.
Most simply understood it means that all the things that you think will go wrong in a free market also effect government and in that arena they tend to play out worse. Humans do not change their character by virtue of working for government, though the character of govenrment inherently attracts specific tops of humans that does not lead to high levels of competence.
Regardless, my point is that the forces of homogenity in government are large and powerful.
expecting significant variation on a “case by case” basis it irrational.
The opposite is more true, the government will have an overall character that is relatively uniform, and deviation will be unusual. The question then becomes whether Strzok is the norm or an abberance, and there is plenty of evidence for the former.
We are now hearing of one of the key attornies on Muellers staff emailing Sally Yates to congradulate her for not defending Trump’s immigration executive order.
People are free to do that – we are free to be biased.
The relevant question is not whether people can hold biases but whether biased people can conduct a fair investigation.
The yates email is evidence that this person can not.
The Trump EO was constitutional. Outside of the extreme left and a few nutcase judges that was never in question. the most recent decision unblocking even minor narrowing was 7-2.
This was NEVER a close issue. Yates was never able to explain why it was unconstitutional.
You can agree with the president, or not, you can speak out or not. you can determine for yourself what you will and will not do. But as attorney general of the US if you think the president is asking you to do something unconstitutional you must resign. You can #resist outside the executive.
If you do not resign – they you ARE by definition too partisan or biased to serve.
You are unable to distinguish your own values from the constitution and the law.
Most of us here not on the lunatic left grasp that the constitution and the law are not exactly as we would want them. We even understand that though the constitution says one thing the courts have found it to mean another – and like it or not that is “the law”.
We work to change the law and the constitution to what we think they ought to be.
But we do not pretend that it just is what we want, or use the power of government to impose law that suits us – rather than the law and constitution as they are.
We had 8 years of Obama making up the law as he went along. The Obama administration after 4 years had set a record for the number of unanimous supreme court decisions AGAINST it.
That is a profound sign that those in government were so biased they could not see any viewpoint besides their own.
That is what congradulating Sally Yates demonstrates – and inability to see anything but what you want to see.
Anyone who wants is free to congradulate Sally Yates, but anyone who has publicly done so is not qualified for a role invovled in applying the law as it is, in an investigation.
This is similarly true of Strzok. We all know that FBI agents are biased – all of us are.
That is not the issue. That Strzok supported Clinton and opposed Trump is not the issue.
That he was not cognizant of the fact that texting his paramour – another DOJ attorney biased messages was problematic is the actual issue.
All of us are biased. Most of us say – but I will try to do my job without bias.
We fail to differnet degrees. Those whose biases are so strong they can not keep them from popping out are the ones way too biased to be part of an investigation that has a partisan character.
Strzok may well be a great guy and a brilliant agent. I do not care who he voted for. I do care that he demonstrated poor and partisan judgement in this one thing. Because it means he is not capable of even trying to make unpartisan judgement in others.
Just as the attorney who publicly congradulated Sally Yates.
The ends never justifies the means.
All of us at times find that appealing.
But it is never true.
That is an obviously immoral position.
It is the same as “by any means necescary”.
It means you will lie, cheat, kill, maime to get what you beleive is a good end.
It means you can never get a good end as the means you use will ultimately polute you end.
You have OPENLY presumed that the president is lawless – based purely on your emotions and dislike for him, and from that you are demanding lawless actions to prove it.
Do you not understand that once you will lie to “prove” someone else is a liar – the only thing that is actually know is that you are a liar.
Unless Mueller conducts his investigation fully lawfully, we can not know that his results are truth.
The Flynn plea is the perfect example.
Flynn has plead guilty to lying to the FBI.
“The Lie” is something that Trump was unable to see, that Trump’s attorney was unable to see, that Strzok and Comey did not see.
“The Lie” did not occur in a prescheduled interview where Flynn knew that the absolute truth was required and had the benefit of legal advice, it occurred in a converstation that was represented to Flynn as a routine discussion of security procedures.
We can debate for hours whether there was a actual lie.
We should not have to debate that we can not criminalize something that most of us can not recognize as a crime.
You are arguing for a partisan police state.
You demonstrate bias so high that you are prepared to do harm to others because you beleive they are wrong.
“Before tRUMP ran for President the FBI and other agencies had dossiers on his associations with Russians and organized crime figures. You suggesting it would have been responsible for them to ignore that?”
That would be the Steele Dossier produced by FSB agents, that is so bad the press would not touch it for months.
Regardless, Barack Obama has “know associates” who were violent domestic and forieng terrorists, as well strong ties to a radical minister
Should the FBI have been investigating him ?
Are we going to go back to Hoover’s FBI and start wiretapping Malcom X and Martin Luther King ?
We investigate ACTUAL REAL CRIMES. We do not subject US citizens to the terrible investigative powers of the federal government without KNOWING that a crime has taken place, and KNOWING that the people targeted are involved.
We STILL have neither.
Don’t you read clearly?
I said dossiers BEFORE the campaign.
That excludes Steele.
They had info on Duplicitous Donnie from years before that, contacts with known Mafia associates, Russian business contacts and loans, prior to the campaign. All that’s been reported numerous times.
“They had info on Duplicitous Donnie from years before that, contacts with known Mafia associates, Russian business contacts and loans, prior to the campaign. All that’s been reported numerous times.”
Your claim that something exists does not make it exist.
I had a client who we designed a 3.5M home for in Phila, who had an italian name, whose family was involved in the garbage business, who had relatives that I am sure you have heard named on TV.
You do not seem to think what “known mafia associates” means.
My wife represents people who are known criminals – that is what public defenders do.
Trump ran Miss America in Moscow. I am pretty sure he had to meet with Russians to do that.
My first mortgage was sold 3 times in the first couple of days after I got it.
I am pretty sure that for a brief time it was owned by a drug front in Miami.
None of that is a crime even if true.
We do not investigate people because we do not like them, or who they do business with or who they hang out with.
Jay, “I’ ‘trust’ government on a case by case basis, sometimes they get it right, sometimes wrong.”
Thinking like this putting trust on a very slippery slope. You are placing your guaranteed rights in a man that has no one to basically answer to. I know I am beating a dead horse with this, but when you jeopardize just one freedom in return for information that may or may jot uncover some illegal activity, then you can just throw the constitution and bill of rights in the trash because there will be no one to stop the next infringement on rights. “Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong” It only takes one time to be too many¡!!!!!!!!!
Ron, just agreeing with you about not answering questions. I don’t know if it truly is as it was once described to me, but I have heard that if you are testifying to congress and they ask you what you had for breakfast and you respond: Eggs, two pieces of bacon, and coffee, then later you get asked again and you respond: Eggs, two pieces of bacon, and orange juice, you little confused inconsistency in your answer about any innocuous detail, can get you into a lot of trouble. Again, I’m not certain that is so, but with the government having such enormous power and resources (much more than they should have) I would hesitate to answer any questions I wasn’t absolutely compelled to answer a government entity. Mike Hatcher
Mike, your understanding and my understanding is the same. Anyone making a comment or answering a question without written script in front of them and reading it word for word is either a moron or getting very bad legal advice. And even then I most likely would not answer. Contempt is much easier to fight than “lying to” whoever.
We can dispute details and the law,
But the fact is one outcome of the Flynn plea is everyone is going to shut up.
It is going to be much harder to get anyone to say anything.
When you compel someone to plea to lying and most people can not even tell what the lie was, the result will be people will be very very careful about what they say and will say nothing if possible.
You are driving us towards the situation in the USSR.
It is much harder to get people for what they don’t say, than what they do.
Mike;
You can look up the requirements for crimes of falsification online – the codes and caselaw are readily available.
There are TWO different issues with Congress.
They are governed by different rules than criminal and civil proceedings.
They do not need probable cause to ask and there is no judge to prevent inadmissible evidence from getting in.
Further congress has no direct ability to criminally punish you.
But they can make your life miserable.
I have no doubt that POLITICALLY you can get in deep trouble for trivial inconsistencies in testimony to congress.
Criminally Crimes of Falsification have strict narrow requirements.
You must say something clearly false.
That false thing must be significant enough that it might alter the outcome.
As an example saying that some event occured at 11 when it actually occered at 10 would be a crime – if the time it occured matters, but not if it did not.
You are not expected to get unimportant things perfect.
Both in criminal and civil procedings and with testimony before congress they opportuntiy exists to revise your testimony or statements.
You have generally not committed a crime until you have had the oportunity to reveiw and correct your testimony.
This is also true about written submissions which is why there were a flurry of corrections to various Trump staff filings – because they are allowed to correct them.
It is also surprising that Flynn did not correct his FBI interview immediatly after he was fired.
My bet is that he did not – because he did not know he was being interviewed.
In many legal proceedings there are accusations that someone lied.
It is very nearly impossible to have a legal proceeding in which someone does not lie about something,
You are likely used to seeing lawyers on TV tear about witnesses for lying – and that does happen.
But all – even most lies under oath are not criminally prossecutable perjury or falsification.
They are punished – by not beleiving the person telling the lie.
With respect to the recent Trump Jr. assertion of priviledge – it is a weak claim.
It is still a valid one, but if he faced a truly hostile inquiry he would likely lose – and then he would take the 5th, because the only way arround that is to give him immunitiy.
Schiff huffed and puffed, but he did not have the power to force the issue and new it.
In front of congress you can say – I am not going to answer that question.
And about the only thing they can do is hold you in contempt, and then the DOJ must prosecute.
We are having battles over that right now – DOJ and FBI are not providing Nunes and Grassley with subpeoned documents We had them with Obama.
If Congress demands something and it is not provided, DOJ/FBI must get it for them.
When congress demands something of DOJ/FBI – who makes sure they get it ?
Given the Flynn/Mueller plea I would expect that everyone is going to avoid testifying about anything it this point.
I would.
Attorney Client priviledge is complex. Unless the attorney represents bot Thump and Trump Jr. not only is there no privilidge, but the presence of both Trump and Trump Jr. destroy’s privilidge.
But if there was an attorney, and he represented both, and the conversation was in the context of legal representation, then yes Attorney-Client does apply.
You can not make an attorney testify about his client, you can not make a client testify about what he told his attorney.
There is also a separate privilidge that Trump has not used – that is executive privildge.
If the conversation was in the context of Trump’s duties as president and Trump Jr. was an advisor – I do not think he is a member of the administration, then the conversation is likely priviledged.
Regardless, I think at this point you are unlikely to see the Trumps agee to FBI interviews, or to further testimony, and to the extent they do every word they utter is going to be thoroughly vetted by a lawyer – and in most instances, they will not answer – the lawyer will answer for them.
That is what happens when you pull this 18 USC 1001 crap with something no one thinks is a lie.
Why clam up if you have nothing unseemly, unethical, or illegal to hide?
“Why clam up if you have nothing unseemly, unethical, or illegal to hide?”
After you post that you expect Mueller to do anything necescary to get a conviction – you can say that with a straight face ?
Regardless, your desire to know something does not create an obligation for me to tell.
My innocence does not create an obligation to tell.
The experience of Flynn should clearly demonstrate why from thiis point forward it is going to be damn near impossible to get anyone to talk.
That is the consequence when you manufacture lies and prosecute that criminally.
You can not be charged with lying if you do not talk.
When stating the truth differently from the way the investigator wishes to hear it is criminalized – people stop cooperating.
There has long been a public policy argument that 18 USC 1001 is an abysmally bad idea.
There is not an equivalent with respect to state law enforcement.
Lying to a police officer is very dangerous.
Not because they can charge you with “lying to the police” – they typically can’t.
But because they get to use your lies in court to discredit you.
That is the proper use of lies to the FBI.
Blah blah blah!
We need to hold people in power like Schlump and his family to a stricter standard, Dave.
They have to be FORCED to be truthful, with aggressive scrutiny. And if guilty, severe PUNISHMENT
What rights you grant those you hate the most are the most rights you can count on yourself.
Justice is blind. It does not know or care who it is being applied to.
Regardless, are you saying that Trump Jr. and Cushner and Flynn and Manafort and Papadoulis need to be held to a jigher standard than Clinton, Abedin. Mill, Obama, Lynch, Comey ?
I would also suggest that you want to FORCE them to be “truthful” because it is self evident that what you hoped to find has not emerged.
That leaves only two possibilities – the highly unlikely one that you have chosen, that Trump the all powerful has successfully run a huge conspiracy that no one can actually find – because he is so powerful he can keep it secret,
or there is nothing there.
Get a clue, there is nothing there. The entire Russia Collusion nonsense bothered me from the begining. Something just did not work for me. That was until Comey was fired.
That is when I realized the narrative was impossible.
There are ONLY two ways you can actually “get” trump.
Essentially there are only two things that will be generally accpeted as unforgivably wrong, and illegal.
Trump participating in hacking voting machines – and todate no one has alleged that.
Trump participating in hacking the DNC – and you can not even establish the DNC was hacked rather than leaked or that it was the Russians much less that Trump was involved.
Anyway, those are the only two things that if you establish this ends instantly and Trump is toast.
It does not matter if no votes were changed, or if there was an effect on the outcome.
The left has that part totally wrong. Finding something that changed the election is irrelevant.
The outcomes of elections can change for myriads of reasons.
Only ones that involve actual crimes matter.
While you have not even been able to establish meetings of consequence with Russians, even if you did – they are not a crime. Discovering more significant meetings with Russia would likely harm Trump – but it STILL would not be a crime.
It is not illegal or improper for Trump to meet with foreign leaders – Trump met with the Mexican President. There are indications that someone tried to setup a meeting with Putin.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Should something like that show up now – it would be damaging only because it has been secret..
Discovering that the Trump campaign has secrets would be damaging – atleast to small minds, of course they have secrets. but it is not a crime.
My point – what I realized after Comey was fired is with very few exceptions even if you found what you are looking for – it would not be a crime.
There is only one reason for Trump to say they had few if any meetings with anyone associated with Russia – and that is because they did not.
Had Trump provided a list of say half a dozen contacts between Russia and Trump campaign in Jan 2017 – it would have been a story for a few days.
If we found 10.000 emails trying to arrange a face to face between Trump and Putin – it would be a week long story.
The only reason for Trump to say there was little or no contact is because he believes there was little or no contact.
Trump ands his lawyers are not so stupid as to lie about contact that could be trivially explained away.
What is fundimentally going on here is the left can not beleive that Trump won, since he did, he must have ‘cheated” and you are going to keep up the witch hunt until you find “cheating”
You do not seem to grasp that if you don’t – you are going ot look VERY BAD.
So much wishy-washy pontification it makes the head spin.
Why bother with you at all… it’s like trying to find coherent meaning in the sloshy turning water inside a washing machine.
“So much wishy-washy pontification it makes the head spin.”
Not in the slightest “wishy washy”
it is the foundations of western law.
“Why bother with you at all”
I do not make your choices
“it’s like trying to find coherent meaning in the sloshy turning water inside a washing machine.”
Pretty clear
The ends do not justify the means.
You may not initiate force against others.
the only rights you have are those you allow others.
Pretty clear.
Your remarks pretty much epitomize why government use of FORCE must be justified.
Left, Right, it does not matter, there will ALWAYS be someone who wants to use force in govenrment.
They will want to use force against their enemies.
I actually think one of the problems with the modern left – is that because for the left “the ends justify the means” you beleive the same for everyone else.
Obama did use the federal government as a political weapon against enemies and you defended it. Whether is was fast and furious, IRSgate, Benghazi, U1, CF pay for play, the email scandal or unmasking.
You and I both know that most of these were not innocent nor incompetent.
These were efforts to use the power of the federal government for personal or political gain or both. And you stood behind them – the ends justifies the means.
Now Trump is president – you are sure that he behaves exactly the same as you do – the ends justifies the means.
Because you have engaged in your own misconduct or justified misconduct, you will not accept that Trump could possibly be more moral than you are.
Because you have done evil for “good reasons” you can not except that others have not done evil for bad reasons.
You see Trump as dangerous – because if you had power, you would be dangerous.
If you read down further, The questions were in regard to the crafting of Trump Jr.’s response to requests for information about his meeting with Natalia.
The questions were specific to the crafting of that response.
If Trump Sr. were not in the room – Trump Jr.’s claim of priviledge would be correct.
If Trump Sr. is in the room AND Both are represented by the Attorney present and the communications are related to preparing the response – then priviledge likely still applies.
Regardless, The committee can:
Offer immunity thereby waiving priviledge,
or
consult the committe’s lawyers and decide if priviledge does apply and if they are going to force the issue.
They did’nt.
My guess is that the issue is in a grey area – i.e. whether priviledge applid depends on exactly what was said, and since you can not find out exactly what was said without Trump Jr. testifying,
Trump Jr. likely wins.
The committee did not force testimony anyway.
Regardless, we all know what Schiff was after
“daddy helped you write that didn’t he ?”
And your not going to get an answer.
Keep rationalizing guilty behavior. You’re good at that.
“guilty behavior” is not the standard – the law is.
Part of the problem remains that you seem to beleive that the government can pry into anyone’s life as deep as they please merely because you want to know answers.
I am currious – I want to know what was said.
But my wanting to know is not the same as having a right to know.
The 4th ammendment. which we have shredded and burned, the 5th amendment, and the assorted priviledges – as well as the requirement that law enforcement be investigating and actual crime, and have probable cause before it can pry into your life are the impediments to governemnt digging into whatever it wants – just because you want to know.
It does not matter whether Trump/Trump Jr. are actually “guilty” of something.
You need more than your “beleif” to search for the evidence you hope to find.
I think Trump Jr.’s claim of privildge in this instance was weak.
At the same time I do not think you are EVER going to get this question answered – because there is another inviolable privildge that does apply – the 5th amendment.
Which contrary to popularly belief protects you from testifying against yourself.
Because left nutcases have already asserted that the statement was coordinated, and that the coordination was obstruction – which is not true, Trump Jr. can never be forced to testify about it.
He might choose to do so.
But your mere loudly publicly expressed belief that it was a crime means he will never have to.
Trump Jr.’s assertion of attorney client priviledge was a sort of weak guanntet.
He was saying – I am not going to answer this question.
I can tie you up with a fight over attorney client priviledge if you want for possibly weeks and if I loose I will be refusing on 5th ammendment grounds.
Trump Jr. did not want to lead with 5th amendment because idiots like you think that is the same has a confession.
““guilty behavior” is not the standard – the law is.”
when it comes to Impeachment, BEHAVIOR IS the standard
When it comes to impeachment congress decides the standard.
Not happening.
Why we have Trump?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/opinions/why-trump-is-winning-bauerlein/index.html
The Beloved President Garners Praise From Vets
Jay, Once again your liberal hatred has introduced hysterical emotion into your thoughts.
There REALLY IS limited resources in the federal budget. So now the vets can not go to the doc of their choice. The money was being reallocated from homeless housing to medical care. So now they wait months for healthcare and die before getting treatment . And that is widely documented as happening.
If you dont like what is happening. dont use the vets as a tool for Trump hate spreading. Use something like the 1.5 trillion added to the debt that should not happen and the money should be sent to the veterans admin. to fund both healthcare AND homeless program..
And to stake my place on taxes, I support corporate rates at 20%, very few deductions, no hedge fund special regs, the end of SALT deductions and the difference made up by other tax code changes to make the changes budget neutral based on the last completed budget year. None of this lying congressional growth/tax revenue projections.
“your liberal hatred”
I don’t hate Liberals, Ron. I tolerate them better than trump Republicans and Moore conservatives.
“your liberal hatred” meaning your !iberal political position driving your hatred for Trump.
Use as adjective, not noun.
And tell it to the American Vet whose tweet I posted to stop using himself as a tool for trump hate spreading. Tell him he can’t hate who he wants to hate. I’m pretty sure what he’d tell you in return, deservedly.
BTW, do you know how high the Vet suicide rate is? Here’s a hint:
“Suicide rates for veterans climb to “staggering” proportions.”
Think reducing funds for Vets who need help is going to raise those numbers even higher?
Good grief, there is no way to have a discussion on issueswithout your hatred for Trump getting all your attention.
“Trump wants to shift vet admin budget moneys from one program to improve another OH GOD tRUMP IS CRAPPING ON THE VETS!!r
Where were you when I was having a cow posting many comments about the abysmal healthcare our vets are getting? Not a word from you. But now its a big deal?
Its OK for Obama to fuck kver the vets, but when Trump makes a proposal to shift money to healthcare, you now have a cow.
HYPOCRITE ¡!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Where were you when I was having a cow posting many comments about the abysmal healthcare our vets are getting? Not a word from you. But now its a big deal?”
Honestly, Ron, I don’t read all the comments. And I have no recollection of reading the comments you mention. I certainly have been sympathetic to the poor way vets have been treated, poor healthcare and other bad faith treatment as well.
“Its OK for Obama to fuck kver the vets, but when Trump makes a proposal to shift money to healthcare, you now have a cow.”
His version of shifting money is taking it from program A and reducing the money before shifting it to program B.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2017/09/26/439661/5-ways-president-trump-congressional-republicans-betraying-veterans/
A link from americanprogress ?
Regardless, fine you do not read all the comments.
OK, your choice.
But given that you only start frothing at the mouth when you found some left wing nut spouting “Argh!! Trump” garbage, do not expect to be take seriously.
The VA is a mess, it has been for a long time.
We have been spending more and more on it for years and years and it is getting worse and worse.
It is too early to blame problems at the VA on Trump – but unfortunately I do not expect it will be better when he leaves.
But it is probable that it will not be more expensive.
If we are going to F#$k up, the least we can do is not blow even more money too.
I will not be TOO hard on the VA under Obama – because the VA has ALWAYS been a disaster. ‘
It got worse under Bush, it got more expensive under Bush, it got worse under Obama, it got more expensive under Obama.
It is also an absolutely fantastic example why government healthcare does nto work.
Read your own article.
Regardless, rates have always been high.
They were surprisingly higher under Obama than Bush.
They appear to be going down slightly.
How are you connecting suicide rates to homelessness ?
How are you connecting either to federal spending ?
Maybe getting out of stupid foreign military interventions might reduce the homesless and suicide rates – and save money.
I’m assuming homelessness leads to desperation leads to depression leads to suicide.
Therefore more of any of the above also increases suicidal ideation which increases suicidal attempts which increases successful suicidal attempts.
You have evidence that’s no so?
There’s numerous studies supporting increasing Vet suicide rates I believe, like this one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501966
The study you link to says nothing about overally rising vet suicide rates.
The current rates are high – they rose through much of Obama’s term, but strated dropping arround 2013 or 2014. Though they are still high.
Wow, Homelessness correlates to suicide.!!! News at eleven.
We have lots of homeless programs, and I would expect because they do on nearly all federal programs that Vets get preference.
We do not need the VA to have mirrors of every program in existance.
Do vets as an example need their own separate foodstamps program ?
Finnally I would say that you are arguing that spending money is the same as actually doing something about a problem.
After the fiasco at the VA some time ago we bipartisan spent alot more money on the VA,
Things got worse.
With most government programs money is not the problem.
There are myriads of problems
Starting with belief in magic.
One of the reasons that private solutions always work better is that privately we rarely just throw money at problems.
The entire engine of the free market is doing more with less.
We sometimes spend small amounts of money to figure out how to do more with less.
But we rarely just spend more money and expect better results.
If you want government to actually deliver – the first and most important thing you need to address, is the incentives.
Throughout the government workers must benefit if they deliver results that the people see as valuable, and suffer consequences if they do not.
Today government workers benefit if they spend more. Not if they deliver more.
Money, is not support,
Money is not action.
Money assures nothing.
We spent a small fortune making the VA work better – it has gotten worse.
The amount of money the federal government spends on something has no relationship to the value it delivers.
Caring for people
is not “giving them money”
Loose Dentures Sink Schlumps?
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-white-house-says-trump-slurred-during-1512596355-htmlstory.html
Who knows,
He is old enough that most anything should concern us.
So is Hillary.
It is entirely possible that he could fie, or have a serious health problem – tomorow, in a year, in 10 years.
That is just how it is.
So you want to celebrate that ?
If something bad happens to ANYONE you want to cheer ?
You’re damn right I’d celebrate.
A very American response,
Just substitute ‘Wicked Son Of A Bitch’ in the appropriate place:
Celebrating the misfortune of others ?
I think there are right wing nuts posting right not that God is punished Sodom and Gomorah as California burns.
How is that different from what you are doing ?
OK Dave – time for you to Zip It for a week.
Oh, right – you remained silent on that wager…
https://apnews.com/0cb35e74a6884d93b66fd82d2787b969
You have to get past this misperception that I am some tribal partisan republican.
I am glad Franken has chosen to resign. It is the right thing to do.
I do not beleive the law requires it, nor that the Senate can nor should do it.
But my respect for Franken is increased.
People make mistakes, those mistakes have consequences.
Resigning is understanding that.
As I understand it a the Lt Gov will likely fill his seat to the 2018 election.
But she will not run in that election.
Franken can if he chooses run in 2018.
If he does and is elected this is gone – atleast so long as he keeps his hands to himself.
Which I think he will be doing.
It is also my understanding that the Democrats as a whole have decided to adopt a zero tolerance position – that is why Franken was presured out, why conyours is leaving, and why another democratic Rep. is unders serious pressure to resign.
This is long overdue. Domocrats have serious damage control they need to do here.
They OWN clinton and nearly all these recent outings are progressives.
Regardless in the real world – conservative – progressive, get caught loose your job.
Democrats have also sold themselves as the party of women – yet they lost the vote of white women in 2016 and that would have turned the election.
If Trump had been running against someone who was not a “slut shamer” Trump likely would have been defeated solely by the womens vote.
Democrats are starting to grasp that among other reasons they lost 2016 because they are hypocritical about women and people see it.
The democrats have a unique opportunity here.
If the purge the few law makers they have with the slightest tent of mysoginy they can make amends and walk back their hypocracy at a very low price – Franken will likely be replaced by a democrat as will Conyers.
Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of allegations have been against the left,
they are in a position to go into the 2018 election with the treatment of women as a millstone they can hang arround the neck of Repuboicans
I think this is an incredibly astute political choice.
My complaints are – they are getting off too easy, the price is not high enough, which means we will be back to this all too soon. And why didn’t they do this sooner.
In 2018 Republicans are likely to have Roy Moore in the Senate and Trump in the whitehouse.
The treatment of women can become a very strong campaign issue for democrats.
I wish their commitment was stronger – and by that I do not mean that they will pass more laws for women – we do not need any more laws, and I will likely oppose any such laws.
But that this really meant a permanent change. That democrats would be pressuring any candidate with credible allegations of sexual harrassment to step down.
I hope they “walk the walk” more than just 2018.
I hope there are no more Bill Clinton’s.
This is a very good move for democrats and very bad for republicans.
And I have ZERO problems with that.
More cynically I would note that another reason for pressuring Franken out is fund raising
aparently Roy Moore has been a HUGE boost to democratic fund raising, but Franken is a millstone.
There is also talk about a deal regaring Moore – Franken’s resignation for Moore’s expulsion.
I hope so. I hope Republicans are smart enough to do so.
But I have also heard the opposite, that if elected Schumer will work to PREVENT Moore from being expelled – specifically because expelling him is good for republicans.
Anyway we will see.
If Franken decides to run in 2018 he should do it as a Republican – he’ll have no problem with Republicans over his past sexual misconduct..
The Hill seems to think Mueller is done.
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/363569-muellers-probe-doesnt-end-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper
From your link:
“ I think it’s high time for President Trump to do what he should have done a year ago: declassify everything related to the Russian collusion case and the Hillary Clinton email investigation, both of which go to the heart of the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, FBI and, possibly, the White House.”
I’m all for that happening.
So why do you suppose tRUMP hasn’t done that, as suggested?
Huuumm?
I am all for that.
But I think the chances of it happening are zilch.
And that has nothing to do with Trump.
1). Getting things associated with national security fully declassified is damn near impossible.
Trump could sign an executive order – and 50 years from now it would be declassified.
We are already seeing DOJ and FBI drag their feet releasing tons of information that HELPS Trump. Why do you think that would go better because NRO asked it or Trump litterally issued an EO.
The elite state is working hard to protect itself – not Trump.
Why didn’t Trump order the FBI to release the emails of the coverup of the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting ? We have them now. It has taken multiple court orders and legal battles.
They are helpful to Trump,. So why did he not just go down to DOJ and demand they be released ?
Because despite what it says in the constitution Trump does nto control the federal government.
Well earlier today Al Frankin fell on the Democrats sword and created a huge public relations problem for the GOP (IMHO). He was accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct. He could have stayed and went through the ethics probe. However, he did the right thing to avoid more embarrassment, more legal expense and shelter his party from futher issues withbthe womens movement. And he handed his party the gold ring, especially if Alabama elects Moore.
Mitch McConnell doesnt have the balls to block him from being seated and Moore does not have the ethics to resign before veing seated, letting the AL governor to pick a replacement.
I think Moore, added to Trumps sexual misconduct, really gives the Democrats a good start for the 2018 elections, attracting some wavering womens votes.
I think McConnell will expell Moore if he has the votes to do so.
But that will require alot of democratic votes,
and the issue will not even come to a vote if McConnell can not win the vote.
The threshold is 66 votes.
I think Schumer is deliberately going to hold back enough votes to keep McConnel from trying.
That is wise politically but morally bankrupt – but who expects morality from Washington ?
Regardless, Democrats will get more credit for cleaning their house than they deserve.
But it is stil both the right thing to do and the politically advantageous thing to do.
It is also a step towards something important they have not done – confronting the fact that they lost, and that is not someone else’s fault, and taken a step towards seeing why the lost and fixing it.
So Kudos for democrats for doing the right thing – atleast when it is also the politically right thing.
Dave, so McConnell would not bring it to a vote and force democrats to go on record and then have to defendbtheir votes? Same with GOP senators who would vote no to expel.
My crystal ball – yours may vary.
There is ample evidence at this point that McConnell hates Moore and will nearly certainly look to make his life miserable and particularly like to see him gone.
But he needs 66 votes, that is every republican plus 13 democrats.
I do not think he will get every republican.
The fewer republicans the more democrats.
Schumer is likely to try to give every vulnerable democrat or democrat who needs a boost with woman the opportunity to vote to remove Moore.
At the same time Schumer actually wants Moore to remain.
Jones is the best chance at a democrat. If Jones loses to Moore even if Moore is removed the seat will be a republican seat. There is no reason for Schumer to actually want Moore gone.
He is an albatross to hang arround the neck of Republicans.
I would personally like to see Moore gone.
I hope I am wrong.
I do think democrats have made both the morally and politically correct choice to clear their won ranks and to improve their appeal to women.
It is not enough to nominate and elect women. It is not enough to pass laws that you think favor women. It is not enough to say the right things.
Clinton did poorly with white women – because she was a hypocrit. Democrats have a women problem – meaning they are not doing as well as they think they should. Because they are obviously hypocritical.
I think that this national #metoo moment and the scale of its effect on the left is a wakeup moment for them. Maybe that is wishfull thinking.
More cynacally, I understand that even if they lose Alabama, that Moore has proved a democratic fund raising bonanza.
I think that Pelosi and Schumer have looked at the cost of purging Franken, Conyers, …. and it is low. Their seats are highly likely to remain blue in new elections.
I think Franken would have survived but for this unique sequence of events.
Anyway that is my look into the political crystal ball.
(2nd try to post this.wordPress is pathetic)
How about that, Ron – I fully agree with your assessment, while still despising Schlump.
See, we can share views, when you’re on the correct side of the argument ..
“See, we can share views, when you’re on the correct side of the argument .”😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Did you fall over in a dead faint reading this when you could agree with something I posted?
Hope your daughters residence made it through the fires. Just showed on the local news the Lilac Community retirement village (close to San Diego) with multiple homes going up in flames. No trees around, no brush, but houses still in flames. You think your safe when you dont live in the hills, but that is not so any more.
Franken didn’t really resign. He said he “would resign in the coming weeks.” If Moore is elected, he will say that he doesn’t have to resign, wait and see….
Conyers didn’t resign either – he “retired early” and said that he wanted his son to succeed him, as if his district is some sort of hereditary sinecure. (Pat’s favorite word 😉 )
Political kabuki theater. Neither side cares.
They keep this up we wont need term limits. They are limiting their terms themselves.
http://www.yahoo.com/news/rep-trent-franks-texas-resigns-amid-ethics-investigation-000216150–politics.html
I would hope there is something more here that discussions with staffers of surrogaacy.
Prof. Haidt excellent as always.
This is about heterodox academy and its efforts to restore free speach and critical inquiry on college campuses.
But it is about much more. Haidt cites John Stuart Mill repeatedly.
Anyone who has not read Mill’s “On Liberty” really should, you have one hand tied behind your back with regard to Critical thinking if you have not.
Regardless, Haidt repeatedly covers what is wrong.
Put simply debate is nearly gone from academia, there is little viewpoint diversity and the result is that people all beleive the same thing, and at the same time do not know what they beleive, do not know how to defend their own beleifs, and when called on to do so they resort to anger, insult, and violence.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that”
Mill.
Lets see,
the news of the day.
One top Mueller attorney represented Ben Rhoads on Ben Ghazi.
McCabe directed FBI agents not to call Ben Ghazi a “terrorist attack”
Mirroring the subsequent direction by AG Lynch to call the Clinton investigation a “matter”.
Another top DOJ attorney met with Steele and Fusion GPS and failed to notify DOJ of this until recently.
Mueller Lieutenant Aaron Zeble was the Attorney Representing one of the IT Staffers responsible for Clinton’s basement email server.
Much of this appears to be coming about as a result of an Inspector General Review of the Clinton Email investigation.
The mere fact that one might be a Clinton supporter working on investigating Trump might be a reason for concern, it is not alone a disqualification. It would likely be impossible to find lawyers to investigate Trump who are not clinton supporters.
But there is a different standard for Lawyers – the first is a conflict of interests.
My wife as a criminal defense attorney can not represent the codefendents of a client, or former client, witnesses against a client or former client, the family of a client or former client – anyone where knowledge gained from or relationship to the that former client might be beneficial or predjidicial in representing the new one.
Nor is that constraint specific to her personal representation, but that of any other attorney in the office, in otherwords she can not work on a case that involves in any way someone from a prior case.
And that is just the conflict of interest standard.
The other standard is that of “the appearance of impropriety” that forbids representation where it merely looks as if you might be biased.
While those standard do not apply to FBI agents like Strzok, they do apply to all of the attorney’s above.
I would also note that much of this information was not disclosed.
The contacts with Fusion GPS as an example were not “official contacts” – Comey as an example met with Steele, that is part of the FBI records – meaning Comey’s reported that contact as part of his investigation.
As the left is so found of noting – what are they hiding ?
It is not evidence of bias to support Clinton.
It is compelling evidence of bias to hide your connections to Clinton.
Drip Drip Plop!
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/939129798793793536
Of course they do. They discover secrets that are being hidden by governments and business – that is pretty much exactly what intelligence services do.
Wikileaks is different in that it PUBLISHES those.
The also act very much like investigative reporters.
And if you have read much about intelligence work, you would know that there is little that the CIA and NSA come up with that you can not read on CNN.
Why ? Because Intelligence is much like investigative reporting.
Is Wikilieaks hostile ?
The US intelligence community has TWO jobs. The acquire the secrets of others, and to protect our own. Wikileaks sole jobs is to acquire secrets – so of course they are hostile.
You are completely unable to separate the ends from the means.
First you justify you own crap because of the ends you hope for, then you condemn wikileaks because of the ends they produce.
Wikileaks we the darling of the left when they were targetting Bush.
Now they are an evil hostile foreign counter intelligence agency because they targeted Clinton.
If you want Wikileaks to “go after” Trump – then dig up dirt on the Trump administration and provide it to them.
If you want them to “go after” Russia – then dig up dirt on Russia and provide it to them.
The vast majority of Wikileaks revelations are about CORPORATIONS.
In other words they serve the left.
You are incapable of coping with the fact that someone might have values that are different from yours without being evil.
Wikileaks goal is to expose the secrets that the powerful do not want exposed.
They are dependent on what they get from leakers and hackers – they do not actively procure information themselves. What they expose depends on what is provided to them.
They publish information from myriads of sources – many of whihc probably have an agenda
So What is the truth not true because it sometimes favors an argument you oppose ?
Jay
You need to keep up.
Apparently WaPo has now falsified several elements of the Trump Jr. Wikileaks story.
1). Trump’s Jr. was not actually contacted by Wikileaks – but a DC business man – possibly with ties to Wikileaks.
2). The CNN story has the dates wrong – Basically a DV businessman provided Trump Jr. with links to the DNC document dump on wikileaks the day AFTER it was made public.
3). It is now established that the source of the CNN story is a democratic congressmen on the house intelligence committee. That is likely to trigger an ethics investigation.
Just to be clear WaPo did not falsify the entire story, but demonstrated that the timing is significantly in error, and the connection is more indirect.
Which makes this far more innocuous.
Further it makes they new left meme of wikielaks as the bridge between Trump and Russia very close to impossible.
The story as reported by CNN was not that damaging – the contact was nearly all one way.
But now it is one way, once removed and after the fact rather than before.
Drip drip, no splash.
You’re right, Dave,
CNN screwed up the date.
Screwing up the date alone entirely transforms the story.
But it is worse – they also screwed up the source.
It is really hard to collude after the fact with the wrong person.
One ROTTING tRUMP Spoils the Barrel
For those to GOP enablers too guilty to read through to the column end:
“The rot afflicting the G.O.P. is comprehensive — moral, intellectual, political and reputational. More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: “I’m homeless. I’m politically homeless.””
And for those still rationalizing the Trumpocalypse, you’re politically MINDLESS.
Only if you’re on “the right side of the argument” Ron!
My sister is in Studio City in LA. Not a great situation. The barn where she keeps her horse has been destroyed and she’s afraid that the horse is dead.
Hope all is well with you and your family, Jay.
Thanks for the concern, Priscilla – .
So far my daughter OK, some air quality problems, and ash dropping over their neighborhood, but safe for now.
Sorry to hear about your sister’s difficulty.
My wife, who boarded horses here in LA at one time, still has friends who do. She has heard there was a serious loss at one of the Ventura stables, and she is checking online to find out if any of those people lost their horses.
These fires makes all this political crap secondary to the real problems people are facing. These are real losses, just like the hurricanes. All the attention is focused on this now and in 2-3 weeks everything will be back to “normal” with political bitching and arguing, except for the thousands still out of homes in Puerto Rico, Key West, Houston and now central and southern CA. There are people who have still not recovered in North Carolina from hurricanes Floyd and Mathew. Totally forgotten except for themselves remembering
I do not want to downplay the harms that have happened to people.
But TX has the 2nd highest growth rate in the nation right now,
As expected Recovery has been far easier for TX.
Because recovery is not a function of government aide, but of the attitudes of the people.
I would further note in the real world bad things happen.
Nature is violent and destructive.
While some of her wrath can be anticipated and mitigated, all of it can not.
It is my understanding the Current fires are in Northern California – LA-SF.
I worked for a company in Southern California for a couple of years and visited for a week every other month.
I watched the Scrips Ranch Fire which I think was about this size, engulf vast areas arround San Diego.
The fire destroyed buildings within sight of my companies corporate offices,
A few miles away half of the multi-million dollar homes in my bosses development were destroyed – while others were intact.
CA – atleast near SD haws a rainy and dry season, rather than 4 seasons.
And fires during the dry season are common and can spread and grow large fast.
In San Diego the building codes are pretty tough regarding fires.
But you can make a building near non-combustible – stucco with a tile roof,
and it is still going to be destoryed if the trees close enough are dry and catch fire.
Regardless, my sympathy to those who are effected by this.
(Barn is not in Studio City, but farther north in Calabasas)
Priscilla, so sorry. It is just hard for me to get my mind understanding how places like horse ranches and stables that have huge cleared areas can catch fire. I understand homes where they use wood shingle and shake roofs that are fire dangers in themselves from embers floating mile, but barns and stables that use metal roofs and sidings are different.
Not a republican – so I do not care much.
Regardless, The GOP is both good and evil – just as the left.
I have no idea what Brock’s rotting is refering to – I did not read your article.
But most of the “rotting” problems with the GOP are also true of Democrats.
Almost alone here I ma happy about all the revalations of sexual harrassment.
While I do not want government to do anything about those that do not involve force, and I do not want new laws, I am still glad the maltreatment of women is getting attention and people are getting fired over it.
And that is the right way to deal with it. It is also the way in which not getting it perfect false allegations are least damaging.
Mostly what is being exposed is the rot in the democratic party, not that of the GOP.
That does not mean the GOP does nto have serious problems here.
But the GOP has not spent the past 4 decades claiming to be holier than thou over women.
Regardless, out them all – democrats, republicans, Hollywood. I do not care.
At the moment Democrats appear to be doing a better job of taking the right steps.
AND I AM HAPPY ABOUT THAT.
Thy may be doing it mostly or purely as a political calculation – I do nto care, they are doing it.
Further it is a step in recognition that they lost in 2016 because if who they are.
Because women understood they are NOT the party of women.
Because it is not enough to run a female slutshamer to get womens votes.
This shift by democrats is wise, both politically and morally – and if they benefit from it politically, fine. Good changes should be rewarded.
Further. hopefully republicans will recognize they have to change too.
At the same time in other areas the “rot” we are finding is not with the GOP.
It is increasingly evident that the upper middle management of the Federal government is hopelessly politically corrupt. And that is a democratic problem, not a republican one.
Several respecatable Republican representatives are now openly speculating that the FBI and DOJ used unverified opposition research provided to them by one political party as the basis to open an investigation and seek warrants to wiretap the other political party.
There is no possible greater form of corruption in govenrment.
Targeting your political enemies is what brought nixon down.
But Nixon did not use the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA.
You want to talk about ROT – that is where the ROT is.
And every day brings more evidence of more rot.
Preface: I am not a Moore supporter. I would write in the third party or tighten my sphincter and vote for Jones if forced to vote.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/12/08/breaking-roy-moore-accuser-admits-yearbook-doctored-573242
But what does this do to women’s credibility when they have documentation to support a claim and then they doctor the documentation. I believe that she only added the date, but what about the ones on the fence who will be voting.
Can we not trust anyone? Now, how many of the other claims are also false and provided by Jones supporters that want to see him elected at any cost?
Nelson’s Yearbook signature has been problematic for a long time.
My understanding is that it is an exact match against signatures from court documents from much later, that we signed by an assistant whose initials were D A and had signing authority for Moore.
Signing a document for someone else and putting your initials behind it is a very common practice – particularly in law.
This does nto surprise me
At the same time there are alot of Moore accusers, and i beleive enough of them.
Further I have to admit I hate Moore and that makes it easier to beleive he is a perv.
I am somewhat distrucbed that all these allegations are prior to his marraige.
People who do what Moore purportedly did, do not stop.
I also understand that WaPo and Jones team actively sought out dirt on Moore.
While that requires looking more skeptically at the allegations it does nto discredit them.
Project Veritas goes after people with a political axe to grind.
That does not mean we have to throw out their work, just weigh it with reasonable skepticism.
Exactly the same is True of WaPo.
I like Bezos, and WaPo. I am glad they are there. Bezos has actively moved WaPo is a more “libertarain” friendly direction. Getting the Volokh conspiracy on WaPo is really really big deal for me. Bezos has provided a large public forum for the most respected libertarian legal scholars in the country.
Bezos also purged many of the hard left nutcases – like Ezra Klien.
But WaPo still leans left. And that is fine.
Just as Fox leans right.
If Wapo is actively using its resources to target right wing politicians – great.
That merely requires us to be a bit more skeptical of their results.
I keep harping on critical thinking
Critical thinking is NOT about having only neutral voices – that is just nonsense, they do not exist.
It is about having open debate where all sides of issues are given voice, where biases are not midden, and where each side has the oppoertunity to make their best arguments.
Where the result is NOT to pick something in the middle,
but after hearing all the argumets to decide as best we can what the truth is – regardless of which side that favors.
I constantly hammer Roby demanding his arguments,.
Mill again
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
I try hard to know all sides of an argument.
But I know that the only honest way of testing my own argumets is against the best arguments of those who disagree. The converse is equally true.
As hard as I might study the arguments of those who differ I can never argue their case as well as they can. Hearing both sides – but presented by someone holding only one, is NOT a real test.
Dave have to get better at making my points clearer. So another try.
1. Woman accuses Moore.
2. Opens door for more to accuse.
3. Woman shows documentation that supports her claims.
4. Moore has to defend himself.
5 Popularity tumbles, Jones has good chance to win, only needs a small percentage of undecideds to accomplish that.
6. Women’s documentation shown to be faked by national news network, unlike other questions being ask.
So back to my point and I will make this as clear as possible. There will be many who have been undecided and said to others or to themselves:………………
Alabama undecided voter…….
” I wonder if all this information about Moore it true or if it is made up crap”,,,,,,,, “I cant make up my mind about who to vote for because it may be true with all the women saying the same thing”………….”Holy crap, now we find out this woman lied????!!!!!”…………… Bet some of those other bitches lied also”!!!. ….”Bet those damn Democrats found some women to make that stuff up just like the yearbook woman”……. “I’m voting for Moore, can’t believe a damn thing those democrats say”….”And to think I almost fell for their lying crap!!!!!”
I am not disagreeing with you.
I think your assessment is roughly correct.
I suspect this fries Jones – the election was close, but Moore was slightly ahead.
This will cause more people to doubt the accusations.
Moore will be elected.
But if we are looking at overall credibility:
There are many accusations against More – not 1.
I think the altered yearbook destroys the credibility of this woman.
Worse it destroys the credibility of other accusers – even though it should not.
But that is life.
I actually still MOSTLY beleive this woman. But she made a serious mistake in altering the yearbook.
My point was we need to learn how to think critically.
There are requirements for critical thinking.
One is opening the debate to the best arguments and evidence from all sides.
We can not make wise decisions when we only hear one side, or when one side is at a disadvantage in presenting their arguments.
Another is we must listen to arguments from all sides.
We must learn to use facts logic and reason to evaluate arguments.
We must do so skeptically – I beleive that is in the Haidt video I linked.
One of the problems with the post modernism that permeates the left today, is that it actually rejects the core conception of the west that resulted in the modern era – that is basically skeptical analysis. Putting your work/arguments in front of the best minds who are intent and incentivized to find flaws in it.
Haidt argues that we must learn critical thinking – Mill argues that even the common person must be expected and trusted to think critically.
I would note this is the reason the Trump Collusion meme fails.
Because we are each responsible for our own vote.
Whether we chose as a result of FB adds, or the debates, or the access hollywood video or because we are mysoginists.
The real claim of the left is that we are too poor at critical thinking to make our own choices,.
That we succumbed to Russian propganda and therefor must be protected and only fed approved information.
Following Haidt, if as the left claims people actually were influenced by Russia and that turned the election, the fault is not with Trump or Russia, but with ourselves and our education.
That we were not taught critical thinking.
But Critical thinking is antithetical to post-modernism, which is heavily about accepting received wisdom from our betters.
Honestly, the worst thing about media bias is that it calls into question any reporting that has to do with politics.
Just today, CNN reported that Donald Trump Jr. had received an email, giving him a heads up on the DNC hacked emails, before Wikileaks had published them. The report said that someone had told him that Wikileaks had the emails, and provided him with an encryption code to access them. CNN said that this was the first evidence that Trump’s campaign was working with Wikileaks ~ and by implication ~ the Russians, to hurt Hillary’s campaign COLLUSION!!!
Except that CNN misreported the date of the email as September 4, 2016. The Washington Post later obtained a copy of the email, and found that the actual date was September 14th not the 4th. CNN issued a brief correction a couple of hours ago.
So, it was probably a mistake, but how does a giant, worldwide news organization make a mistake like this, report on it all day long, and then, when corrected by another news organization, just go…oops, we made a mistake. So sorry.
Especially after the “mistake” that ABC made just last week, that got Brian Ross suspended, I have to believe that these media organizations are so hellbent on being the first to report that Trump really, really, really IS guilty of stealing the election that they don’t even bother to confirm the basic details of their reporting, as long as it’s a story that is negative about Trump.
Does anyone seriously believe that CNN would have made that mistake when reporting a story about Obama?
So now, that yearbook signature, which Moore has been saying all along was doctored and the accuser was saying was absolutely 100% Moore’s writing is…….well, who the hell knows? She certainly lied, which calls into doubt her whole story. But, the national media never questioned her story, despite Moore calling for a forensic examination of the yearbook. And many voters in Alabama, who have likely made up their minds anyway at this point, have probably decided that all of Moore’s accusers are lying. Can you blame them?
****Meant to say that the date was important, because Wikileaks made the DNC emails public on September 13, 2016, the day BEFORE Jr. got the email.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/08/cnn-just-armed-trump-with-new-ammunition-to-launch-another-fake-news-attack/?utm_term=.719b62763073
“and then they doctor the documentation”
‘They’ didn’t doctor the documentation.
‘She’ says she added those snippets two years later, after the original inscription. She says she has a girlfriend who can verify that.
Pulling out my college yearbook I see that I made similar notations next to classmates who signed it, to help in remembering them. (I sure don’t remember most of them now)
Jay when you read my original post, I think you will find I said I thought she only added the date. I wont debate that point with you since your comment seemed to agree.
I was asking about the undecided voters that are using this as an excuse to overlook ALL the allogations against Moore. How one moronic decision she made in not explaining the date when it was questioned spoiled the bushel of claims to many who will now vote for him.
Again, we agree.
Jay we need to stop agreeing. We got 4.5 inches of snow today and more coming tonight. We never get snow before January. I think this is the beginning of hell freezing over.
It is not the notes that are the issue.
It is the Roy Moore D.A. Signature that is the serious problem
Roy Moore never personally signed that way.
But a Clerk that did not work for him until years after the event did.
OK did not get much feedback on states rights v federal control on legalized sports betting in states wanting to allow that within their borders. Just Mike and Dave.
So here is another states rights issue.
H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. If you are licensed in one state, you can carry in any state.
I see both sides of the argument. I understand both sides. If I were carrying, it would be nice to be able to have the weapon with me when traveling if I thought I needed protection. (Risk does not recognize state lines)
But I have stronger beliefs in state rights, And if they do not want to reciprocate, then the feds should stay the hell out of their business.
We have a great deal of reciprocity between states on the law – because the states have mutually agreed to it – without federal coercion.
I beleive that some kind of reciprocity regarding gun permits is a good idea – but NOT something the Federal Government should push.
States shoudl be working together – because it is NOT good for the states to prosecute the residents of other states for acts that are legal in their home.
At the same time – while I generally oppose gun control laws.
I am open to the argument that Chicago is different from Texas.
Reciprocity can leverage both ways.
I beleive in the past Chicago has tried to sue gun makers for selling guns legally in areas outside of chicago that end up in chicago illegally.
So I say leave states and cities to work this our on their own.
That does not mean reciprocity is not a very good idea. Just not one the federal govenrment needs to impose.
I am torn on this one, but I would go with the states rights argument, for the same reason that both of you have stated. I would guess that this bill, if it were to become law, would be immediately challenged in the courts, and would certainly end up being decided by the Supremes.
Just to be clear Ron, Mike’s feedback is so awesome, so valuable, that when he gives any feedback at all, that is sufficient feedback. So no complaining about not enough feedback on the legalizing gambling question. Ok, moving on to reciprocity, we are already there with driver’s licenses, I don’t know the history on how that reciprocity was achieved, but perhaps the burden and right of a state should be to allowed to actively exclude another state. The default position should be, a permit is a permit in any state, unless Ohio wants to pass a law stating that they refuse to honor Alaska permits for example. I have driven on a highway on the Tennessee\Georgia border, where one moment you are in one state, then the other , then back and forth. They probably already have reciprocity, but I think it would be so wicked to be sent to jail for 10 years for crossing a state line, hardly aware you even crossed it, and slammed for something as serious as a gun charge.
Mike Hatcher
Yes mike does make some awesome comments☺
Your comment about entering and leaving a state numerous time is interesting . What I find interesting in the concealed carry permits is it does not do anything to stop someone willing to carry illegally from moving from state to state and restricts those that want to follow the law and know how to handle a weapon.
I support the state rights position, but it would be nice if they would use some common sense and realize if you or I had a carry permit, we are not part of the problem.
I agree with your POV, for now.
I’d like to see some OBJECTIVE studies on accidental fire arm injuries and deaths by licensed concealed weapon carriers outside their homes.
Will citizens in states be at any increased risks if more guns are carried across state lines?
Jay, very interesting. Just like everything else on the internet, it is either pro gun propaganda or anti gun propaganda. I went through 6 pages of listed websites and none were independent statistics other than crime stats.
With the internet, it started out as a benefit to student, researchers, teachers and other information seekers. Now you need a PHD in internet research to identify BS from actual independent neutral data.
Figures dont lie, but liars can figure.
I suspect the number of accidental shootings among CC permitted individuals would be very low.
But there needs to be some common sense when someone permitted is found carrying ilegally in another state. If I forget a weapon is in my car or cross state lines without realizing that, is that really a felony with a 5-15 year offense. The difference being a permitted individual is not carrying for illegal purposes like Jose’ transporting contraband.
Jay
Absolute, we should get data on a tiny portion of the impact and make public policy decisions based on that.
This is about as nonsensical as noting from the fact that more people die from guns in places where there are guns, than do in places where there are not, that statistic alone means everything.
“experts” on both sides have been fighting versions of PART this for ever.
No one has yet found statistics strong enough to persuade the others.
On the whole it appears that the absence of gun restrictions correlates weakly with reduced violence and crime.
Obama’s CDC did a massive literature survey after Sandy Hook with the hope of proving a justification for gun control.
While the CDC did find some evidence of some negatives associated with lack of gun laws, it also found some evidence of very strong positives.
There are numerous crimes that are prevented by the presence or use of guns all the time.
Even Australia had no divergence in trends for overall measures.
Of course gun deaths go down when you ban guns.
But deaths do not go down – people are killed in other ways.
There is also pretty good evidence that mass killers deliberately avoid targets where they might encounter armed opposition. And we know that in instances were even one person had a gun attempted mass shootings result in far less deaths.
Anyway data exists, but do not look at narrow data – this is the same mistake that keeps getting made with PPACA.
It does not matter if some law radically reduces the incidence of lower quadrant left kidney failure.
What matters is what the NET effect is on pre-existing trends.
PPACA did NOTHING to overall trends.
Gun Control of most any kind has done nothing on overall trends of crime and violence.
But yes we can find lots of very narrow positive and negative effects for either side to throw at each other claiming “proof”
Critical thinking requires seeing the forrest, not merely the trees.
New Smooch Smooch allegation
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/364056-former-fox-news-anchor-trump-tried-to-kiss-me-on-the-lips
Maybe they need to refocus Mueller onto sexual misconduct where he could find something and not have to entrap friends and relatives to get to him on other stuff.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/roy_moore_s_fake_forgery_claim.html
From above link:
“Here’s the simpler explanation. Moore wrote the inscription. When he first saw images of it, he recognized the writing as his. That’s why he told Jauregui that he hadn’t written the notes below it. It’s why Jauregui publicly challenged the notes rather than the inscription. And it’s why Jauregui declared triumphantly, at a Moore campaign press conference on Friday, that Allred and Nelson were finally admitting that “parts of it were not written by Judge Moore.” When a politician’s lawyer says his client didn’t write “parts” of something, that’s not a statement of innocence. It’s an oblique confession.
Moore also wrote the graduation card. That’s why his aides are trying to explain it, not dispute it. The writing on the card looks just like the inscription, and both look just like Moore’s writing elsewhere. That’s because one person wrote all of these samples. It’s the same person who had access to Nelson and Gibson at the time of the yearbook and the scrapbook: Roy Moore.”
Read it all, for additional observations verifying Moore wrote the yearbook inscription, but not the snippet at the bottom.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990-fox-news-issues-correction-on-roy-moore-accuser-yearbook-forgery-headline
The correction is wise and accurate.
It is also meaningless to the most critical claim – that the signature is not Moore’s.
It is most likely a forgery – though I can actually think of some explanations that are not forgery AND do not have Moore signing it.
As an example Nelson sent the Yearbook to Judge Roy Moore years later to get signed, and his clerk signed it.
One of my sisters got Richard Nixon’s signature – well Rosemay Woods actually signed.
She later sent an actual autograph book specifically to Woods and Woods eventually got Nixon to personally sign it.
Regardless all that matters is that the signature matches something it can not match for the time it is claimed to have been made.
That does not alter the Truth, of what happened, but it does alter peoples beleif.
How do you explain the “Roy Moore, DA” thing? Roy Moore was NOT the DA at the time that he signed this woman’s yearbook. And his assistant, who initialed his signature “DA” was not his assistant until much later……
I think that this woman was manipulated into her accusation by the execrable Gloria Allred. And now that she has been exposed as a liar, everything she says is suspect.
I don’t like Roy Moore. But I think that the backlash against his accusers is going to get him elected.
There are many possible explanations – including ones that are not Forgey.
But NONE that have Moore signing the Yearbook at the time claimed.
I think if it is a Forgery – that Aldred is behind it, but that it occured AFTER the allegation was made.
I actually beleive Nelson. But I also believe this is being misrepresented.
And voters are already leaning Moores direction.
I hope he loses, but that is not happening.
You can try for any explanation you want.
The big problem is not the note below, it is the D.A. after the signature and the fact that the signature matches that of a Clerk for Judge Roy Moore signing for Roy Moore.
Get over this Jay.
The Yearbook is likely a forgery. I still beleive Nelson, but her or whoever did this – I am not sure it was Nelson, not only screwed Nelson’s credibility but damaged that of all of Moore’s accusers.
That is not how it should be – but people are not capable of critical thinking – you should be familiar with this. You have made the same nonsensical arguments in favor of Clinton as are being made in favor of Moore.
If there are ten peices of evidence that demonstrate she is guilty and some doubt about one – you will be shouting at the top of your lungs “not guilty” dismissing the other 9.
Alabama voters are about to prove to be much like you:
Partisan and incapable of logic or reason.
It is sad, but it is highly hypocritical to chastise others for faults that you share.
But that is where tribalism and this “Argh! Trump!” nonsense gets us.
jay;
I beleive that Roy Moore has behaved inappropriately with teenage girls, and that in my county if caught he would have been jailed and have to register as a sex offender for life.
I beleive that Moore did have some relation with Nelson.
BUT the YearBook signature is a forgery.
The article is correct – it exactly matches signatures from other documents.
Documents from later in Moore’s life – when he was a judge.
Documents that were signed not by Moore, but by his clerk whose initials are D.A.
Moore was not a DA at the time of the nelson incident and when he was he did not sign Roy Moore D.A.
Initalls after a signature are quite common in law and elsewhere – when you have given the authority to sign for you to someone else – they sign your name, followed by their initials.
Inside the public defenders office that happens all the time.
The Cheif PD or another lawyer, or a lawyers secretary will sign a document when the Lawyer can not get to the office to sign, and they will follow the signature with their initials.
I do not know if Nelson forged the signature or someone else did.
But it is near certain they copied a Roy Moore signature from legal documents several years later – when Moore was a judge.
Problems like this happen alot. People who are telling the truth but have no actual evidence to support them sometimes make up evidence.
In the real world I have seen it many times.
It is a very dangerous game. If you are caught and you often are, it no longer matters if you are telling the truth.
I beleive I have noted that I am in a protracted legal conflict over my father’s estate.
Two of my siblings have a lifetime history of impersonating each other and others.
There are several instances that have made it into the case where one or the other was falsifying documents.
Some of the instances are just like the Nelson case – the record is manufactured, but represents what actually happened.
In one instance we have a document that was initially altered by one of them, and then much later altered by the other.
Here is a story on MSNBC.
At this time we know that just about everything in the story is either false or seriously inaccurate.
And you wounder why alot of people have no problem with Trump tweeting “fake news”
or why fewer and fewer are paying attention ?
Government is Force.
Dave why is this so hard for almost 50% of people on any one issue at any time to understand. I understand government making things illegal, it protects other interest from competition (ie big pharma v medical marijuana), but why are people brainwashed and believe how wonderful prohibition laws protect us from the boogie man. Government gets bought off to protect spcial interest, but what does the common folk get?
Dave, if people REALLY wanted protection from things that harm us, they would ban tobacco, alcohol and electronic devices for chikdren under 15 yrs.
We all know the dangers of alcohol and tobacco.
And many understand the negative impact that electronic devices are having on kids and their growing lack of social skills. There is also documentation on the impact of brain development.
But here again, special interest money insures a double standard.
c
“if people REALLY wanted protection from things that harm us, they would ”
not use them as they are already free to do.
Why do we need someone else to tell us not to do something stupid?
Do you think that a person who would act stupid – will not, just because there is a law ?
Kids and those unable to take care of themselves are very messy.
As a generalization – government tends to do worse than their parents do – even bad parents.
Further controlling the conduct of teens is quite hard.
When you make a law about teens what you are really doing is criminalizing parents.
I do not think you will find the issues regarding teens and harmful substances are driven by money and special interests.
That does not mean the local corner grover will not sell cigarettes to teens for money.
But larger stores and the companies producing the products do not actually want that.
The NYT gets Free Markets,
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-hard-road-of-free-markets.html?spref=tw
Concluding Schlump Complaints are as Full Of Crap as He Is:
Did the DOJ Misuse the Steele Dossier — to Spy on the Trump Campaign?
By Andrew C. McCarthy
December 9, 2017 4:00 AM
@AndrewCMcCarthy
“Nevertheless, President Trump would have been a principal victim had there been an abuse of power, and he has the authority to end all speculation by disclosing the relevant information. Since he apparently refuses to do so, one must assume that the intelligence agencies and Obama national-security officials had good reasons for taking the actions they took.
The Dossier: Tissue of Lies or Useful Source?
That brings us back, at last, to the Steele dossier. In the Trumpist portrayal, the dossier is a tissue of lies. This claim is not without foundation. Not only is the dossier a politically motivated hit job orchestrated by Trump’s opponent, but Byron York notes that former FBI director James Comey, no Trump fan, has dismissively described it as “salacious and unverified.” In addition, some dossier allegations have been vigorously rebutted, and defamation lawsuits have been filed against Steele, Fusion GPS (the research firm that hired Steele), and the media outlets that publicized the dossier.
Still, as I have previously pointed out, the reports compiled by Steele to generate the dossier run nearly three dozen single-spaced pages and contain scores of factual claims. Trump defenders have not mounted a point-by-point refutation, just a generalized dismissal, on the rationale that some likely misinformation and many unconfirmed claims render the dossier so tainted that it should be deemed totally bogus. That is not an unreasonable position, but neither is it a showstopper. In fact, some close observers contend, with thorough analysis, that some factual assertions in the dossier have been extensively corroborated (see, e.g., Natasha Bertrand, here, and former CIA officer John Sipher, here). Moreover, Steele, who is said to have enjoyed a good reputation among U.S. intelligence agents, maintains that 70 to 90 percent of his reporting is accurate. He believes his sources are reliable and notes that, though not verified, neither has most of the information been negated.
It is not impossible that the process by which dossier claims were submitted to the FISA Court was corrupt. Having worked for the Justice Department and with the FBI for many years, though, I have my doubts. The Justice Department and FBI care deeply about their credibility with the FISA Court, and the FISA Court bristles at caricatures of it as a rubber-stamp. The government has a strong motive not to deceive the judges, and the judges to scrutinize FISA applications carefully. Consequently, I have always believed there is a second, more plausible possibility: The FBI used the dossier as a source of leads, not as a finished intelligence product that needed no further investigation. The bureau, I suspect, was able to corroborate some of the claims in the dossier, and its investigation of those claims was presented to the FISA Court.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454493/steele-dossier-fbi-trump-should-disclose-warrant-applications
I’m guessing that Trump is holding back for both political and strategic reasons.
The DOJ’s Inspector General has completed a year-long investigation of whether there was misconduct in the way that the FBI and the DOJ handled the Hillary email probe, and other issues regarding that. The final report is scheduled to be issued soon.
There is a good likelihood that the Trump side believes that the report will show extreme bias and conflict of interest on the part of the FBI as well as some members of the DOJ ~ Peter Strzok is likely to play a major part in the report. Perhaps Andrew McCabe as well.
I think that the Trump side is waiting for that report to come out, so that his opponents are on defense. Also, it will be politically easier for him to order the FBI/DOJ if the reason behind the order is connected to Hillary’s role in the dossier. It seems that there is a lot of grandstanding by Republicans over it, so they must know, or think they know, what the IG report will say about it.
From the McCarthy article that you cited : “In the unmasking controversy, it seems Trump was more interested in politically exploiting the specter of abusive unmasking than in ordering the disclosure of what actually happened. Is the same thing true of the dossier?”
Much of the dossier contains information about Trump associates, not Trump himself, and even Comey told Trump that he was not a target of the investigation. But he was obviously caught in the surveillance of others, and he may be waiting to make the case that most of that surveillance was based on a document that was not fully verified and was politically motivated.
Before you respond by calling me a moronic Trump enabler, please note that I am taking this discussion seriously, not refuting anything that McCarthy is saying, and merely giving my thoughts on what might be happening. You and I have different lenses through which we see all of this. I read every column by McCarthy ~ he has been following this story closely. He is very balanced and unbiased, as a former US attorney should be.
But much of what is going on is political, and Trump is likely playing the game as well. If he ordered the release of the warrant application now, it might be politically harmful to him. If he waits, the political effect might be lessened, especially if the “true” parts of the dossier have nothing to do with him.
The main flaw in your reasoning is that tRUMP ever acts rationally when criticized without lashing out (McCarthy notes that). If he could refute or substantiate any of the charges he would have done so by now.
You can expect tRUMP to release the FISA documents McCarthy refers to with the same confidence of him ever releasing his taxes as promised, or providing an accurate copy of his forthcoming medical exam – when Hell freezes over twice.
It is nearly impossible to prove a negative.
Given the horribly bad no good time the media is having – Trump looks rational.
Over time many of his claims enf up being substantiated.
Still hung up on taxes.
The punishment for failing to keep that promise was to not vote for him.
I am gathering you didn’t. End of story.
After his exam the Doctor will come out and make a statement – that is how that always happens.
You can beleive it or not, your choice.
Regardless, what is it you want ?
Lets say he is at risk for strokes, Are you so callous as to hope someone else has a stroke ?
Do you think the medical report is going to say – “he is a nazi” ?
He is healthy, he is not, doesn’t change much.
Oh, the FISA warrant app will eventually be released. Rep Jim Jordan was demanding its release by the FBI just this week. As I said, there is a lot of grandstanding by Republicans over it, nothing by Democrats, so I would assume that the Republicans think it will bolster their narrative that the Obama administration was spying on a political opponent during a presidential campaign.
That’s pretty serious stuff, and may be enough to pretty much tank the Mueller investigation. If I were Trump I would want to continue pushing the spying narrative, if I knew that, when the application is released, it would show that it included information that may have been unverified.
What may be the case is that there is both verified and unverified information in it, and both sides are preparing to make their case.
As far as Trump refuting any of the charges, you are right that he has avoided refuting them one by one. But the same case can be made that, if the FBI and Mueller had any evidence, it would have certainly been out there by now.
Mueller wants to keep going until he can get a serious against Trump, even if it has nothing to do with Russia….obstruction of justice, most likely. Trump wants to keep peeling back the onion to show that Mueller’s probe is biased and corrupt, until Mueller is forced to resign, or scale back his investigation.
Both sides are playing the game, and the game is about impeachment, not Russian collusion.
We are seeing a variation on the Clinton investigation – running parallel.
Clinton survived because he drug things out. Had all allogations come out at once, he would have been impeached. The overwhelming majority of people thought he should resign, but over time that fades.
Given enough time you can make almost any actions seem less importatant.
This also occurred with the Clinton Email investigation.
Though there is less there and I do not think Trump is worried about anything – except a never ending fishing expedition, it is still may be better for him that whatever comes out comes out slowly. Regardless, he does not control it.
But the same works with respect to Mueller and the unmasking and the Obama administration crimes.
One the one had the more time passes the less significant it seems.,
On the other the more this proceeds the more evidence of misconduct we get.
Further what the House wants includes embarrassing information covering a large number of current and prior administration people – they do not want it out.
If something comes out that triggers trumps impeachment – the dirt on them will never come out, so they desparately stall.
Lastly governments NEVER let go of information easily. That is just how it is.
Priscilla, this is a witch hunt and they will keep going until they find something Trump or his team did wrong. Much of the attention is on the transition team and actions after the election. How the devik does this relate to interference into an election.
It is bad when the FBI and their munions (Mueller) can make the IRS look like an angel of trust within the government, but I think they have done this for anykne who is not a Trump hater with their perspective warped by a need to see him removed under any circumstance.
Trump is not holding back anything, DOJ and FBI are.
We have a situation similar to the Comey investigation – DOJ/FBI are ignoring the wishes of the president. Only now his political clout to fire them is diminished.
The IG investigation is what resulted in the recent spate of Demotions at DOJ/FBI.
It is also what has revealed many of the conflicts of interests.
It is not expected to go well for DOJ/FBI.
The Surveilance of others was illegal if rooted in the Steele Dossier.
Nixon broke into the DNC offices in Watergate – he did not break into George McGovern’s offices.
You can not use the government to spy on a political campaign.
There have been allegations that Nixon was actually investigating crimes committed in the watergate DNC offices – that does nto change anything.
If there was probably cause – you can get a warrant.
Priscilla;
Mostly I find McCarthy excellent.
In a few instances he goes farther than I am prepared.
He endorsed a SC investigation of Obama/Iran – which while tempting is no more proper than the Mueller investigation.
But he is wrong on the Steele Dossier.
While he is correct that the FBI could accept it and use it, it still should have treated it as radioactive and dangerous.
It is essentially a list of allegations. The FBI can investigate the allegations.
But the allegations alone are not sufficient to get a warrant.
As some were demonstrated erroneous – that becomes even harder.
We do not know that the Steele Dossier was used for the FISA Warrant(s),
We do know that Strzok had the Steele Dossier,
We do not that Strzok made the warrant applications.
We do know that ranking members of the DOJ were conducting a personal off the books investigation of the Steele Dossier – meeting with Steele and Fusion GPS
That is a huge no no. It is not that they could not meet, it is that it had to be part of the investigation, other wise it becomes obstruction.
Trump is almost certainly being advised by his attornies to not issue any orders to DOJ ro FBI in regard to this.
Yo get a warrant you must cite in the warrant application the information that produces probable cause. Further the officer applying for that Warrant must SWEAR that information is ture and reliable.
Comey testified under oath in May 2017 that the Steel Dossier was “Salacious and unverified”.
pretty much the definition of not sufficient for a warrant.
It is appearing increasingly certain that Strzok applied for the FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page and possibly others. If he relied on the Steele Dossier to do so that would be an egregious violation of due process, the 4th amendment, as well as likely making sworn false statements.
It is questionable whether the FBI should have accepted the Steele Dossier at all given that it is political oposition research on the party not in power. Regardless, using it would have required being substantially MORE careful that normal to avoid issues of Bias.
Arguably the DOJ should have appointed a Special Councel at that time – it should have distanced the Obama administration as far as possible from an investigation of a political opponent.
Further it should have constructed that Special Council’s office extremely carefully – to avoid any hint of political bias.
This is exactly What Richard Nixon wanted to do, but was unable – using the exectutive branch to pursue enemies.
You can “suspect” whatever you want.
Suspect is not sufficient. Warrants can not be based on “salacious and unverfied” information – BTW that was Comey’s desription of the Steele Dossier in May 2017 – was it somehow more accurate in July 2016 ?
Further there are actually standards with sources. If more than a small portion of the Steel Dossier proves false – the entire thing must be either rejected or used very narrowly and carefully.
When the police use informants for warrants, they have to swear to the informants reliabilty.
An informant who has been wrong 1 time in 4 is probably not reliable enough for a warrant.
Warrants authorize government to violate peoples rights.
We do not or atleast we are not supposed to do that lightly.
There is little problem using the Steele Dossier as a “source of leeds”.
There is an enormous problem using it as the basis for a warrant.
Throughout this entire mess whether the Clinton investigations or Trump you have a great deal of trouble getting important fundimental concepts.
Probable cause is NOT – “I suspect” or “Someone says”.
Government can not conduct a search or seizure – without meeting probable cause.
That essentially means it can ask questions – but it can not compel answers.
There was a big flurry regarding the purported Subpeona’s of Trump records from Deutche Bank.
Mueller can not subpeona records – because he wants them. He has to have “probable cause” that a crime was committed and that the information he is demanding will produce MORE evidence of that, and that he is making the narrowest request necescary to get what he is after.
“salacious and unverified” is sufficient to ask questions. It is not sufficient to invade privacy, infringe on rights or compell answers.
Clinton was on the wrong side of that – she has no privacy rights in government records.
And yet even though the FBI could have just walked in an taken most of what they wanted – as it was government property – most of the clinton email investigation was done without searches, without seizures and without warrants – because DOJ refused to authorize the FBI to subpeona anything.
The FBI and DOJ are refusing to produce the application for the FISA Warrant(s) to the House and Senate committees all of which had the highest security clearances, despite subpeona’s
and despites the congresses constitutional oversight right to that records.
If as you say the DOJ/FBI was able to find some probable cause beyond the Steele Dossier then they should have no concern about releasing those records.
Outside the FISA court warrant applications are normally public record.
Regardless, they are not classified – and even if they were they can not be denied to congress.
Nor are they part of the Mueller investigation – they predate Mueller by 9 months.
Regardless they are a legitimate part of the congressional investigations,
While congress traditionally defers to criminal investigations – that is not an obligation.
Several of the convictions for Iran Contra were overturned because Congress compelled testimony during an ongoing FBI investigation and granted limited immunity to get testimony and then DOJ/FBI used that testimony to gain further evidence to prosecute.
Congress tries to avoid that. But these committees looking at providing DOJ/FBI with other criminal referals. We can not stall future investigations to satisfy current ones.
This is part of what is driving the presure to apoint a 2nd special prosecutor.
Ron, I agree, this is definitely a witch hunt.
In fact, I might go even further, and agree with those who say that this is a “soft coup.”
The fact that Mueller was chosen in the first place is disturbing. It is certainly no secret that James Comey illegally leaked his own memo through a friend of his for the exact purpose of getting an Special Prosecutor, and then the SP ends up being his mentor and close friend?! That is an appearance of conflict right there.
Then Mueller stacks his team with very aggressive, Trump-hating attorneys, everyone notices, but Mueller does nothing to allay the concerns of those who see potential bias throughout his staff. Then, he is apparently forced to kick a couple of those Trump-haters off of his staff, because they are illicit lovers and communicating with each other via text (I think the texts probably show some illegal collusion between the FBI and Mueller’s team) ~ and Mueller stonewalls congressional investigators as to the reason why he bounced them.
Mueller himself has the appearance of conflict in the Uranium One case, which is relevant to Russian interference in our political system, but he has neither recused/resigned or explained why not.
It’s all very fishy, very unsettling, and does appear to have the appearance of a coordinated deep state conspiracy to unseat a duly elected president. I haven’t started wearing my tin-foil hat yet, but ………
Priscilla, anyone who trust our government and especially the FBI is missing many of their brain cells. I was just reading an article concerning the FBI basketball investigation and the impact on recruits. One player, actively recruited by a number of schools was implicated, not because there was any evidence, but only because he was being recruited by multiple schools involved in the scandal. He has signed with a school and appears to be clear of any wrong doing. But just like the Mueller crap, had this been my son, we would have had to hire an attorney and pay whatever it cost to avoid entrapment by investigators in their effort indict someone. Had they answer one question wrong, they would be in court for lying to the FBI.R
There has been a soft coup attempt since Clinton lost.
But it is not quite so partisan as is portrayed. Nor is it specifically about Trump.
It is more about the fact that these people believe that he will keep his campaign promise to “drain the swamp”
Many people outside of government seek to oppose Trump for myriads of reasons and so long as they do so conforming to the rule of law – that is fine.
We are not required to agree. Protest, write your congressmen, vote, whatever.
I am enjoying the battle between Trump and the media. We are getting to see the media as it is and that allows us to make better judgements regarding what we get from it.
If democrats in congress wish to obstruct as Republicans did with Obama – fine. The voters will get to decide if they support or are offended by that.
I do not care about Clinton’s procurement of “the steele dossier” opposition research and political dirty tricks is what candidates do.
I do not care about Russia’s social media activity – even if in the mythical world of democrats it had been far larger and exclusively for Trump. The idea that we are so fragile that we are incapable of chosing who to vote for unless the voices trying to persuade us can be controlled is ludicrous.
The big problem is that beginning before the election the machinery of the federal government was being used to target Trump.
I do not think this is a top down organized plot.
But it is the natural consequence when large portions of people – like Jay lose their moral center.
When they accept that they ends justifies the means.
It is the natural consequence of the philosophical underpinnings of the modern left.
Roby pooh poohs philosophy and morality his turing “common decency” into a principle is telling.
What was the “common” standard of the third Reich ?
You can not democratize morality.
I think that most of those “out to get Trump” think they are good people – and might even appear to be in much of their lives.
But their concept of morality is unanchored, and that makes it very easy to persuade yourself that it is acceptable to do bad things for a good cause.
This is also why the demonization of Trump is so critical.
It is not sufficient that people beleive he is a “bad president” he must be an existential threat to everything we beleive in – because it the ends is to justify the means then justifying egregious conduct requires the belief that you are fighting the worst evil ever.
I also find it hilarious that we are hearing from the left that Trump is a threat to “everything we beleive in”. How can that claim be taken seriously from people who can not articulate what the beleive in ?
Anyway I think it is important to understand this is not so much a republican democrat, or left right conflict as a conflict between the entrenched and powerful elite in government and one who is an existential threat to their power.
I do not think that Mueller and Comey and Rosenstein and Strzok and Uhr and …..
are exceptionally partisan – some of them might be. But mostly not.
But they are very strong proponents of the status quo.
I would further note that the Obama administration was sufficiently divorced from the rule of law, and they people were all a party to that, that Trump is a real threat to their reputations, and for some their freedom.
It is increasingly evident that the Obama administration was lawless. Not specifically with regard to Trump, not even in a specifically partisan way. Just that whatever decisions were made and implimented were done so without regard for the law.
AS Jay noted – the ends justify the means.
That is the worst form of corruption.
When you justify ignoring or violating the law – even to do a good thing, you destroy the law.
The most dangerous government is not the one that is oppresively tyranical and lawless.
It is the one that is doing the will of the majority without regard for the law.
In the 1934 Plebescite Hilter received 90% of the vote.
Germans thought he was good and doing good.
I agree with this editorial conclusion:
“A Colorado baker who declined to produce a custom wedding cake at the request of a gay couple,” has a right to do so.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-cake-20171206-story.html
Congratulations;
Unfortunately SCOTUS is dealing with the wrong issue.
Public accomodation laws are unconstitional and stupid.
The current state of such laws – but not sanity or the constitution, is that you can discriminate privately for no reason or any reason – except a short list of specific reasons.
In certain specific instances you may not discrimpinate – unless barring discrimination violates your rights.
We are confusing the fact that Phillips and Master Cake have a very narrow, consistent objection with the fact that they should not need to have ANY objection.
Freedom does not mean – I am free – only if someone else thinks I have good reason to be free.
Master Cake is focusing on Free Speech and Freedom of religion.
But there are innumerable freedoms being violated – including free association.
Part of the problem is that we have nonsenically conflated part of our private lives with the public.
Public is those things that involve government. There is a clear bright line legal distinction between the action of individuals or private groups.
Private is everything else.
There is no difference between your private life – in your home, where you can exclude who ever you wish and be as homophobic as you want, and your business of your store.
They too are your private space – you own it you control it, you decide who you will allow in and who you will not.
Having allowed alot of people in does not mean you have ceded your right to exclude.
We grasp that a business can say – no shoes, no shirt, no service.
In that context we understand they have the right to exclude.
But they have it in all contexts – so long as they are excluding from what is theirs.
SCOTUS is deciding a narrow issue, when the conflict only exists because they badly decided a broad one.
Stupid case. Let them eat cake- from a different bakery-, or bake their own.
I agree with the David Brooks article- which has been attacked- :https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/gay-marriage-cake-case.html
“Legal conflict is a clumsy tool to manage the holy messiness of actual pluralistic community. The legal system does not deal well with local and practical knowledge, the wisdom to know when a rule should be applied and when it should be bent. It does not do well with humility, tolerance and patience — virtues that are hard to put into a rule and can be achieved only in a specific situation. It inevitably generates angry reactions and populist uprisings.”
Excellent words, they apply to far more than Wedding cakes.
It is a permutation of what Hayek calls “the knowledge problem”
It is why government must be limited. Because it is unsuited to control of everything.
I would disagree with brooks on only a few points.
Picket Phillips if you want – I might join you.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with not liking Phillips choice and with persuading others to refuse to deal with him.
If Phillips is free to not bake you a cake, you are free to not buy a bagel from him.
This is not or should not be a free expression or a freedom of religion issue.
You should be free to pick and choose who you sell your property to.
In otherwords the same principles apply to houses, and jobs.
Well, this seems to be that rare instance, in which every TNM commenter agrees.
It is certainly the end of times. (dduck, it is sooo stupid. And your Marie Antoinette quote is perfect!)
The Ever Popular Schlump Further Destroys America’s Reputation
(Let the rationalizations why it doesn’t matter commence )
So what happens now that they dont trust us? We wont put our men and women on the front line to die protecting them from an invader? We wont sign unfair trade deals letting in German goods free of tariffs, while they put unrealistic regulations on imports to Germany? We wont let anyone and everyone from the middle east into America, blocking more terrorist actions within our borders while their government is now trying to figure out what to do with the ones they let in.
Explain what it means please.
How very Schlump like your reply
Which would you prefer – to be liked or to be right ?
Would you prefer to be wrong and despised ?
That’s Schlump 98% of the time.
He’s CORRUPTED the spirit and unity and reputation of the nation for generations to come.
and that’s the truth!
Jay, can you debate an issue in an intellegent manner, or do you just throw out sarcasim due to ignorance concerning issue you just cut and paste from other websites.
Ron, yes and no.
Jay “(Let the rationalizations why it doesn’t matter commence )”
It would be very helpful to readers why you believe a certain point of view and then we could agree or debate a difference of opinion. Just coping a link and posting it jsu opens up a flood of posts with no relationship to what you might be thinking.
It’s probably also true that most Americans don’t trust the Germans.
Pretty meaningless, really, unless some context is put around it.
Are they going to kick out the 35,000-40,000 American troops that are in Germany? That would save us a ton of money, so maybe it’s not a bad idea.
At the moment it appears that 71% of Germans beleive that Merkel can not be trusted.
Regardless, they are free to trust or not as they please.
Have they stopped using Amazon, eBay, Google ?
I think you will find they trust the US quite alot. What you mean is they do not Trust the US Government.
Great – neither do I.
Trust in government is dangerous.
“I think you will find they trust the US quite alot. What you mean is they do not Trust the US Government.”
What I obviously meant is they don’t trust the Schlump government. Duh.
I do not trust any government, nor should they, nor should you.
“What I obviously meant is they don’t trust the Schlump government. Duh”
Then say what you mean.
You beat everyone else up for imprecise speach.
Most of your rants at Trump are just that.
Flynn is facing jail for imprecise speach.
Would you prefer to be wrong and despised ?
That’s Schlump 98% of the time.
He’s CORRUPTED the spirit and unity of the nation for generations to come.
and that’s the truth!
“Love your country, but never trust its government.” – Robert A. Heinlein
I linked elsewhere to the video of Daniel Shaver’s death at the hands of police.
Watch that and then tell me you trust government ?
“Flynn is facing jail for imprecise speach.”
Flynn is facing jail for lying under oath.
But congrats, defining ‘I swear to tell the truth’ as Imprecise speach is a novel way to undermine scores of legal convictions.
“Flynn is facing jail for lying under oath.”
Bzzt, Wrong.
Flynn plead guilty to violating 18usc1001, You can read that in the plea deal
18usc1001 is materially false statements to a government representative.
It is NOT a statement under OATH.
In this case it is arguable that he was not even being formally questioned – he was ambushed, and as represented to Flynn the agents were there to tell HIM about security procedures.
The misstatement was NOT material – it could not be, he was not aware he was being investigated.
Further Strzok – you know the guy who is being accused of bias, who was the “interviewer”
has written that Flynn did not lie, and Comey has TESTIFIED that Flynn did not lie.
Here is 18USC1001 – read it, it is not applicable to testimony under oath.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
Here is the actual US code for perjury.
I would note it must be MATERIAL,
The person making the statement must believe it to be false.
There is lots of caselaw on this. Perjury is extremely difficult to establish.
Imprecise IS a perfectly valid defense.
Of course we are not arguing about the crime Flynn plead to.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621
I don’t think that the FBI necessarily puts people under oath when they question them, so you might be wrong about that, Jay. Hillary wasn’t put under oath, and no one recorded or took notes on what she said, so we’ll never know if she lied or not.
Although, I’m guessing she lied. But she is above the law. as we all know.
There is no oath involved.
This crime is not even specific to the FBI.
If you make a materially false remark to a federal employee in an investigative position, you have violated 18usc1001
Here is a very good primer on 19usc1001 nad how easy it is to get caught by it.
http://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/How-to-Avoid-Going-to-Jail-under-18-U-S-C-Section-1001-for-Lying-to-Government-Agents.shtml
Short Clear thinking about “jobs”
http://ryanaferguson.com/2017/12/why-businesses-hire/
Note how the economist looks at overall effects, not specific individual effects
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454504/police-murder-daniel-shaver
There is a reason that the Sherrif’s call this a “Brady list”
That is after a Supreme Court case where it was decided that prosecutors and police are obligated to provide the defence with any exculpatory evidence they might have.
Failing to do so is a Brady violation and quite often results in any conviction being overturned, and sometimes a bar against retrial.
Brady is one of very few SCOTUS decisions that have been favorable to civil rights in the past couple of decades.
I can not beleive there is any chance the 9th circuit will not require turning over this list to prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Quit damning should be the fact these officers testified in 62,000 cases since getting on the lst.
I would note that a large percent of these officers are on the list for falsification.
Why aren’t they in jail ? should be the relevant question.
Regardless, it is absolutely a brady violation to hide from the defense a government witnesses past history of untruthfullness.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sheriff-brady-list-20171208-htmlstory.html
Jay Common sense is not limited to one party!
Clinton debate answer:
” I opposed CAFTA because I did not believe it was in the best interests of the workers of America. I did hope that the TPP, negotiated by this administration, I was holding out hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. Once I saw the outcome, I opposed it. “
Jay expects us to beleive that Clinton was lying about TPP – and she likely was,
That when elected she would send out negotiators to make a few meainingless changes, claim to have fixed it, sign it, and celebrate it as a major accomplishement.
While I do not share Trump’s public opposition to free trade.
I do share his opposition to Trade deals – particularly multi-lateral ones.
They are primarily corporate manipulations of national sovereignty.
Opting out is a good thing.
Trump has already made a number of gains in Trade – with China, with Asia and throughout the world. Further a US/UK deal is in the early stages that has the potential to be one of the most significant ever.
One of the most significant differences between Trump and Obama is that Obama worked multilaterally – building coalitions, and Trump is working unilaterally, making deals with specific countries.
The latter sounds more appealing – particularly to people who value the collective over the individual, but multilateral deals are harder and tend to be far worse and more dangerous.
Ho Ho Ho..
Bait And Switch – or How Liar In Chief & His As*hole Republican Cohorts are Fu*king The Middle Class.
“”Fundamentally, the bill has been mislabeled. From a truth-in-advertising standpoint, it would have been a lot simpler if we just acknowledged reality on this bill, which is it’s fundamentally a corporate tax reduction and restructuring bill, period,” said Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.). “I think they were particularly concerned about innuendo and what that might mean, so it was labeled as a middle-class tax cut.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-tax-plan-gained-steam-gop-lost-focus-on-the-middle-class/2017/12/09/27ed2d76-db69-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html
Jay, I think this is a bad bill. I only support the cut in corpiratevtax rates and everything else should have been left out.
But you need to read up on how legislation becomes law in America. Congress writes bills!!! Trump gave them one red line. 20% and the middle class will pay less. The rest is all congress tax reform. And trying to find info on impact on middle class, again it is either liberal or conservative propaganda showing on the internet.
Best I can determine, the middle class gets a small decrease in total taxes and the corporate rate is 20%. THE REST IS CONGRESSIONAL CRAP!!!
Read up on the constitution and how legiskation becomes law. Trump is not a king!
Ron, I know how the Constitution works, do you?
If the president isn’t in accord with a bill, HE VETOS IT.
You think that’s going to happen? You believe for a millisecond The Grifter In Charge isn’t fully in accord with it?
The US under tRUMP has followed the Russians under Putin: the rich will get richer with government help – and money, favors, opportunities will circulate indirectly to those in Congress who enriched them, making them richer too.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/tax-bill-provision-texas-senator-would-enrich-pipeline-giants-2624094
Jay, I know the president will sign this, but that is what congress does. It puts in what the president wants and then includes all the special interest goodies.
When the moronic voters stop supporting the two party system and wake up that neither oarty has their best interest in mind, then maybe good kegislation that benefits everyone will get oassed. Until that time, voters will continue to drink the democrats cool aide and eat the GOP’s bull crap and special interest legiskation paid for by the rich will continue to be passed.
Bzzt, Wrong.
You are playing the same stupidly transparent word games as Schiff.
A president does not veto every bill that have problems with.
There are many reasons for veto’s.
Two common ones are
a single very serious matter that the president is at odds with.
The bill is on NET deemed bad.
Presidents constantlhy sign or allow to become law bills that they have issues with – even serious issues.
They Rarely “Fully support” even things they sign.
I am sure I can find a dozen Obama signing statements demonstrating he did not “fully support” a bill he signed.
You are just spouting nonsense.
I think overall I support this plan.
It is far from perfect.
I do not expect it to have the large net possitive impact claimed, nor the large appocolypitc impact claimed. I expect it will be moderately positive.
I expect that its “cost” will be lower than expected, but not net positive.
As to what I would prefer:
Cut spending
Cut spending
Cut spending
…..
The flattest possible taxes,
no deductions
no subsidies.
no double taxation – that means elminiate corporate taxes.
Treat capital gains as income – with flat taxes and no corporate tax, this is not harmful.
This is far from that – but it is closer than we are.
It is also going to increase the pressure for spending cuts.
Next we need a bunch of constituional amendments and laws that make growing govenrment harder and cutting it easier.
..
The executive has ZERO legislative or regulatory role in the constitution.
That has entirely been accomplished via delegation.
It is unlikely that can be reversed, but we can increase congressional oversight and require congress to give final approval to all regulation.
We need some form of balanced budget amendment.
We need to re-enable unilateral abilities for the executive to reduce spending,
things like line item veto’s and the repeal of laws requiring the executive to spend allocated funds.
We need laws to have sunset provisions,
We need laws and programs to be regularly reviewed for effecacy.
Basically we need more and more means and process to easily terminate bad and ineffective laws.
The worst parts of the tax plan ARE its excessive focus on the middle class.
Like it or not changes in middle class taxes have negligable or negative impacts on the economy.
While I beleive that Republicans are overstating the positive effects of tax cuts it is still true that it is marginal tax rates that most strongly impact investment and the Republican plan’s effect on marginal tax rates is very weak.
Ultimately the more important issue is spending, and we are not there yet.
The real toot of government economic impact rooted in of classical liberal economics – so called “supply side” economics – is not taxes, but government spending.
Tax rates, Deficits, debt, inflation are all important factors,
But if you do not reduce spending any change in tax rates means a balancing change in either debt of inflation.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/moore-accuser-nelson-did-not-admit-yearbook-forgery-and-her-story-doesnt-discredit-others/article/2010789
While the article is correct, you and id duck the fundimental problem.
Roy Moore never personally signed Roy Moore D. A. – not ever. Not when he actually was a DA, which he was not.
The only “Roy Moore D.A. signatures were done while he was a judge and by his clerk not personally.
I will absolutely agree Nelson did not admit forgery – though she did admit alteration, which opens the door.
It is also possible the signature is not “forged” though I think that is unlikely.
But it it is not a forgery then it was written in the 80’s not the 70’s by Moore’s clerk, not Moore.
That is unlikely, but not imposible.
Regardless, Nelsons credibility is unfortunately shot, and in doing so she has seriously harmed that of other accusers.
Ultimately I beleive both Nelson and the rest of Moore’s accusers.
But what I beleive is not what matters.
It appears near certain Moore is going to be elected.
I hope not, I hope I am wrong.
I’ve really gotten tired of all of the moral posturing about Roy Moore.
Why can’t the voters of Alabama decide that a flawed candidate who will vote as they want him to, is better than a ~ possibly ~ less flawed candidate, who stands for everything that they oppose?
Does anyone think that the voters of California would be any different, if they were faced with the choice of a very liberal candidate, who was accused of dating underage girls 40 years ago, or a very conservative candidate, who opposed gay marriage and abortion on demand?
Hell no, they would not be any different. They would vote for the liberal. It wouldn’t even be a close call.
I understand why the voters in Alabama are doing what they are doing.
They are still wrong. as Might the voters in California in your hypothetical.
Moore was an abysmally bad candidate before this mess.
The RNC should have dealt with this in the primaries. ‘
But I am not concerend about AL voters.
I am concerned about me.
I can not vote for Moore, or Franken and did not voter for Trump or Clinton.
While Jay keeps trying to replay the last election and get a different outcome – which is not going to happen.
But he is right about one thing, sometimes races are close, and when they are offending a group like women can make a difference.
Priscilla/Dave, whatever one may think of the candidates, I have about as much dislike for the women coming forward against Moore. Alabama went through primaries to choose a GOP candidate. They had months before that process to come forward and make these claims leading to a much better GOP if the people belived them. BUT NO! They play politics, wait until Moore is the candidate and then come forward.
Is this putting country first or party?
I understand what you are saying. I do not disagree on the facts.
The GOP failed to Vet more properly.
The Media failed to vet Moore properly.
I doubt Moore could win the GOP primary at this point and whoever did would easily defeat Jones.
The women could have come forward earlier. I agree.
But I am sorry, I do not hold that against them – I hold that against the media and the GOP.
I also think that democrats could have nominated a more palletable candidate – atleast one more palletable to Alabama. My problems with Jones are small, but he is a very poor fit for Alabama.
While he is to the right of one of the senators I already have
Nelson has clearly made mistakes with respect to her allegations, and she has not merely diminished her own credibility but that of other accusers – whether that should be or not.
I am also troubled by the age of the accusations. That does not mean I do not “beleive” them.
But we have statutes of limitation for good reason.
Recollections of events 4 days ago are often eroneous, recollections from 40 years ago must be weighed very carefully.
Further we know based on the way memory works that it can be changed.
The police are actually very adept at this, which is one reason why we should never allow multiple interviews of a witness – particularly one whose initial story is not exactly what law enforcement wants to hear.
When you repeat a story – and the interviewer can nudge you a bit – your memory changes.
I am prepared to beleive that these accusers had unwanted contact with Moore at the times alleged. I am not prepared to rely on details or their recollections.
I am also disturbed because Moore has clearly stopped this conduct.
That is virtually unheard of.
The people who does these types of things never stop.
But it does not matter – I can not vote in Alabama, and I would vote against Moore even without these allegations.
I am Glad WaPo brought this to the fore. But I am angry they did not do so earlier.
I am glad these women came forward. I am angry they did not do so earlier.
I wish the GOP had vetted Moore more thoroughly.
I am glad that sexual harrasment is becoming less acceptable in business and in politics.
But I do not want new laws. I want women to feel free to come forward,
I want the public and employers to decide on the credibility of the allegations.
and where appropriate people should lose their jobs.
I think we are capable of having a world where harrassment is not tolerated and uncommon,
but where we can distinguish between actual harrassment and poor relationship skills and bungling romance.
But I grasp we can not do so perfectly. Some people will be fired who should not be, and some people will not who should. But perfection is not acheivable.
And guess who the first ballot counted for the liberal candidate would be filled out by.
JAY¡!!!!!¡!!!!!!!!!
Agreed. I don’t like Roy Moore for a variety of reasons…he’s a bible-thumping phony, in my opinion. However, the only serious charges against him are a 40 year old allegation, which is unprovable and which he categorically denies, and another, equally old accusation, by a woman who insisted that the inscription in her yearbook was “100%” Moore’s handwriting, and now has backtracked on that. Her story has other serious holes, as well.
I think that the voters have a right to make a choice, without being, themselves, accused of supporting evil. Many of these people believe that abortion is murder, and that they are voting AGAINST evil.
Democracy can be messy.
President Poo Poo And His Administration Undermining The US:
“An award-winning U.S. diplomat who was seen as a rising star at the State Department has issued a scathing resignation letter, accusing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the Donald Trump administration of undercutting the State Department and damaging America’s influence in the world.”
(Remember: when you rationalize a Poo Poo’s behavior, you become one by default)
I am quite happy what Tillerson and Trump are doing at State – though I would note there is some friction between Tillerson and Trump.
Regardless, both seek to radically cut State.
Again – go read “the ugly american” – the most significant negative impact on the US influence and perception throughout the world is the US state department.
I am not “rationalizing” – whatever that meaningless phrase you spew constantly means.
I am full throatedly supporting castrating the US state department.
It is bloated and nearly useless.
Trump and Tillerson have both done quite well thus far int eh area of foreign relations
I see no world problem that would miraculously get better if we did not cut 30% of the staff at the state department.
Isn’t President Poo Poo calling for a Washington Post journalist to be fired a public threat to the First Amendment?
When a President calls out a reporter BY NAME doesn’t that put the reporter’s life in jeopardy?
Dan Rather, 2016:
“This is not a game. This is not the usual bipartisan antics of candidates complaining about unfavorable press coverage. This is about subverting one of the most noble of our traditions. Our stature as a nation – moral, economic, social, and even the military – is served by having a press corps unshackled and unafraid.”
Trump tweeted in October of this year:: “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”
Very Duterte of him, right?
When you loudly and publicly make extremely stupid mistakes with your NAME attached you put your self in jeophardy.
Others noting your mistakes are not the Cause of your risk. Your mistake is.
Trump should absolutely stop the threats to use the power of govenrment to silence enemies.
That was the tactic of the left in the 60’s and we should not return to the stupid “fariness doctrine” or anything similar.
The right answer – is to get rid of licensing entirely.
That aside the federal government is doing Zilch to impliment Trump’s implied empty threats.
Ajit Pai has publicly stated there is ZERO preasure on him to punish Trump’s enemies, and that he is being actively encourage to expand freedom and diminish the role of the FCC.
And this: can you believe these right Wing Trumpomaniacs?
Did you actually watch the linked video being criticised ?
While a bit more strident than I might be, and slightly quicker to throw on handcuffs.
otherwise I have no problems with it.
Worse still nearly every allegation in the video is established fact.
While not necescarily the “whole” story it is all the truth.
Regardless, I have ZERO problems with holding people to the same standards they hold others to.
Clinton had Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. prosecuted as a scapegoat to cover up her own malfeasance. I personally find that by far the most offensive thing she has ever done.
When you cover up your own failures by using your power as an agent of government to criminally prosecute the innocent – I am ready to jail you and throw away the key.
Mueller and his team hit Manafort with an early morning SWAT raid and a no-knock warrant.
If there is grounds for charges against him or his team – I have no problems with their experiencing the same handcuffed perp walks they have subject others to.
Further the general thrust of the video is correct.
We will not end this lawlessness until there are serious consequences.
Lots of firings and a few people going to jail.
I was aware of the problems with McCabe. I was not aware of the depth and breadth of McCabe problems. I would note McCabe was the acting director of the FBI after Comey was fired.
This is not appropriate.
I happen to both agree with Trump and his critics regarding the FBI.
The FBI’s reputation is in tatters – but the overwhelming majority of FBI agents are good honest people.
The fish rots from the head.
No.
And anyone who defends President Poo Poo for stacking the judiciary with Conservative judges is here on this MODERATE blog under false pretenses.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/10/trump-judicial-nominees-republicans-287911
Obama “stacked” the judiciary during his tenure with Judges from the left.
The POSITIVE impact on the Judiciary of Trump may be the most significant of Trump’s legacies.
Trump’s Judicial nominees are not “conservative”. These are not the people that Bush’s or Reagan would have appointed.
The single most influential group regarding Trump’s judicial nominees is the federalist society.
More than half Trump’s nominees either come from their ranks, or are strongly affilated with them.
This is the largest step forward with regard to re0embracing “the rule of law” that has ever occured in this country.
I would note – these are NOT people who are going to embrace a strong executive.
Should trump actually act Tryanically – these are people who would shoot him down instantly.
Gorsuch is an incredible addition to SCOTUS thus far, and most of these nominees are similar.
These are NOT Bork’s or Roberts, or Souter. Nor are they Alito’s or even Scalia’s.
These are people who follow the law and the constitution as written.
Who expect where the law or constitution are not as we hope that change is accomplished by legislation or amendment.
These are people who do not try to find in the law or the constitution anything that is not plainly there.
It is actually shocking that in this particular area Trump is nominating these people.
Trump has never shown much serious interest in legal philosophy.
While Trump’s campaign list of 25 potential SCOTUS nominees was critical in getting him the real conservative vote, it was always a question whether he would stick to that promise – becase Trump is not and never has been that kind of conservative.
But further Trump’s list of 25 was NOT a “conservative” wish list. It was a very specific kind of conservaitve – it leaned heavily toward federalists.
If you actually want to know something about these people – actually got to the Washington Posts legal pages – which are run by the “Volokh Conspiracy”.
Orin Kerr, Randy Barnett, Eugene Volokh, Ilya Somin, and myriads of other of some of the best legal scholars in the country are found there.
That Jeff Bezos brought Volokh and crew in as one of the early changed he made at WaPo is one of the greatest things he has done. He has made WaPo the flagship of legal expression among major media,
To be a bit more accurate the modern federalists are the “libertarians” of the legal world.
While they are not nearly so libertarian as I am, these are still amazing people.
We have seen very few people of this caliber in the history of US law.
These are potentially the next Storey’s or Marshall’s
And, we are supposed to take seriously, person who calls the President of the US, “President Poo Poo?” Perhaps, if we were 3rd graders…..
Regarding the courts ~ the Democrats are court stackers extraordinaire. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, now known as the “9th Circus,” is a prime example. It is now a leftist court, which has been overturned by SCOTUS more than any other appellate court.
And what goes around, comes around. Right now, there are 4 seats on the 9th Circuit, which Trump can fill. Court packing can be played on both sides.
I am MOSTLY happy with what Trump is doing with the courts.
Not because he is putting in “conservatives”, but because he is putting in judges that are going to follow the actual law and constitution.
These are not perfect judges. But they are the best we have seen in my lifetime.
Moore believes his God placed tRUMP in the White House.
Anyone else agree?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/09/roy-moore-praise-putin-russia-alabama
Inarguably the left placed Trump in the whitehouse.
Those who keep defending SchLUMP will burn in Hell Fires 🔥
OK, I know Hell Fires dont exist – but it feels so good saying it.
Shiff;s remarks are proof of his own idiocy.
The Russian’s offered help to both campaign’s.
ONLY Clinton actually accepted and received “help”
The rest is inaccurate, misrepresentative and not a crime.
In fact the entire meme can be echoed perfectly with Clinton, or Obama.
Today’s best tweet:
GOP – Grand Old Pickpockets
https://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-are-looting-the-treasury-while-they-still-can/
God, not the stupid “inefficient distribution of democrats” argument.
If you do not like the distribution of democrats MOVE.
I got about 5 paragraph’s into your article and it had still not said anything – beyond Republicans BAD!!!.
Yes I know I’m posting a lot today.
But the ‘Dave’ impulse surfaced, and like him, I CAN’T STOP!
=========
Steve Bannon and Members of Trump’s Inner Circle Stash Investments in Offshore Tax Havens
https://www.thenation.com/article/steve-bannon-and-members-of-trumps-inner-circle-stash-investments-in-offshore-tax-havens/
So does Southern Poverty :Law center.
Is there some place in this article that it says this is not their money ?
Are they not free to keep their money where they please
https://d.tube/#!/v/adamkokesh/r4a6k3cs
Quinnipiac poll:
Who do you believe is more responsible for the current economy?
Obama?
Trump?
Neither?
Quinnipiac poll:
Who do you believe is more responsible for the current economy?
Obama 50
Trump 37
Neither 3
.
The correct answer is Neither.
The correct answer is:
Not Obama,
but it is too soon to tell if Trump is responsible – for that to be true the effects must endure.
If Growth remains above 3% through next November Democrats can kiss any chance at the house and senate good bye.
Does this mean that you are atleast willing to admit that the economy is doing well ?
Since when do we decide facts by vote ?
Government regulation screws the poor
https://fee.org/articles/occupational-licensing-is-just-another-form-of-cronyism/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook
The questions that feminists need to ask a man on the first date ?
https://wearyourvoicemag.com/identities/feminism/10-things-intersectional-feminist-first-date
http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/10/the-fbi-is-not-your-friend
How to deal with sexual harrassment
https://fee.org/articles/the-best-defense-against-sexual-harassment-is-a-free-labor-market/
Jay;
Do you not grasp that the dishonesty and deceipt of the left – the “by any means necescary” approach of the left is resulting in the destruction of the credibility of the left and the media.
We expect mistakes – no one not even the media is perfect, but when the mistakes all go the same way – that is a strong indication of a problem.
That is the problem the media fast right not.
You can get it right about Trump 75% of the time and remain credible – if the 25% of errors seem random. But when they all fall the same way, you are no longer beleived – not even when you are accurate.
The same is happening to Mueller/DOJ/FBI.
We are rapidly approaching the point where the left MUST come up with something actually damning, or this collapses.
You celebrate the 8pt. generic edge democrats have at the moment – that is not that unusal.
and rarely translates into victory for the left – but it should be a cause for concern for republicans.
But how long will that last as more and more allegations against Trump fall flat, and more and more indications of bias and corruption grow.
How do you think voters are going to feel about the left if a year from now there is still nothing ?
Jay, “We are rapidly approaching the point where the left MUST come up with something actually damning, or this collapses.”
Are you sure? Or is this better to continue like the Benghazi investigation that took over the conservative news network and conservative news outlets, but never went anywhere, or the email investigation that provided the same outcome. Both put a negative light on Clinton and most likely changed over 80,000 votes in three states that could have made her president.
I suspect both the investigations in the house and senate will drag on due to some democratic maneuvering as well as the Mueller investigation well into 2018 if not early 2019. That will cover both the 2018 midterm elections as well as the election cycle for 2020.
If I were the democrats, I would not want this solved before the elections as there is no better friend than negative news generated by perceived wrong doing by the President. And I bet Elizabeth Warren is praying it last well into her campaign for president also.
(If some of us thought Obama, with a democrat congress was a bad dream, Elizabeth Warren with a Pelosi/Shumer congress is going to be a nightmare.)
The Benghazi hearings was an excercise of congresses oversite function
Not a criminal investigation
Further it was trriggered by an actual real world event.
The Benghazi investigation kept getting restarted – because the Obama administration continuously hid things requiring re-opening.
Most of the public understood overall what happened at Benghazi, and that if possible it should not have happened. It was perfectly legitimate for Congress to figure out what went wrong.
There is no “should” with respect to the outcome of an election.
If you want congressional hearings into Russian hacking – go ahead – but be prepared for a conclusion that the DNC was not hacked – regardless, do you really want congress subpeonaing the DNC ?
Congress has already addressed The Russian Social Media presence.
There is no crime, there is no government failure.
The only issue is are you going to be so stupid as to try to prevent something that is impossible to prevent and insignificant.
Regardless – except in the minds of the left, there is no “should”
There was no bombing, no terrorist act, no govenrment failure.
There is already a presidential commission on voting – the Russian voting machine hacking is part of that. I would like to see that addressed seriously.
The simple answer is get rid of computer voting machines.
There is no “changed votes”.
Unless you can demonstrate where votes cast one way were changed to a different way,
you are left investigating why voters voted as they did – that is NOT within the domain of government.
I keep refering to my grandmother who always voted for the most handsome candidate.
Unless you beleive you are free to do something about that, there is nothing else short of force or fraud that government may interfere with.
Voting is a very dangerous area for govenrment.
There is no government without voting.
“The Rules” regarding voting have to be addressed carefully – because you have a chicken egg problem.
If you allowed govenrment free reign to make whatever laws it wanted regarding voting – it would pass laws that guaranteed that power would never change.
We are all guessing, but I think this is slowly dying.
There does need to be investigations into the allegations of misconduct in the previous administration, but the very nature of these and the fact that administration is over, means there will not have everyone fixated on todays tweets.
Those investigations should be performed outside of congress,
They should either have a Special Counsel, or be conducted by parts of DOJ/FBI untainted by the current investigations.
The purpose of those is to assure nothing like what just happened occurs again.
That should cost people jobs, and possibly some criminal prosecutions.
But except for those who remain in positions of power, this is mostly not high profile.
The Trump/Russia thing dies soon – absent Mueller finding something,
and given that he is chasing unicorns that is unlikely.
Thus far none of his scalps justify the SC investigation.
To the extent he has proven anything thus far – it is that there is nothing there.
This could die faster if the IG report on the Clinton Email investigation tars and feather too much of DOJ/FBI and Muellers team.
The democrats do not control congress.
Frankly if I were them I would have killed this long ago.
The real Drip, Drip here is the exposure of more and more amlfeasance on the part of Obama administration.
“How do you think voters are going to feel about the left if a year from now there is still nothing ?”
The question to ask: are voters going to feel any better about Schlump?
He barely won the election. A one percent shift in the swing states would have elected the Hated Hillary. No matter who the Dems nominate, there won’t be anywhere near as much built in animosity for them.
And President PooPoo’s support has been steadily eroding.
His negatives aren’t going to change, only get worse as he continues his bullshit tweeting and other outlandish unpresidential behavior. Nor will continuing positive economic news, because the actual economic gains for the majority of voters is minuscule. An extra few bucks a week in a paycheck isn’t going to make a difference to those struggling to pay their bills. And when the shit hits the fan with the Republican destruction of the health care safety nets they’re now shredding, twenty times more angry lower and middle class Americans who will be the ones most effected will be screaming for Republican blood.
What I see in the near future is the de-fanging of the Republican Party.
That will start in 2020. By 2028 something saner will have replaced it, if not in name, then in principle.
You keep arguing as if the election must be redone every single day.
It happened, it is over, what if games should be about the NEXT election.
whatever you say about 2016 – NOTHING has changed that is actually harmful to Trump, and much has changed that is beneficial too him.
He is now the president.
whether you like that or not.
Every singl voter – even those who do not like him KNOWS what they are getting.
He has not brought about the end of the world, or to our knowledge gotten BJ’s in the Oval.
He is by definition MORE presidential and qualified than in July 2016.
The economy appears to have turned, he is doing significantly better than Obama on foreign policy.
The Russia meme is dying and to a large extent proving what those who voted for him beleive – that Washington is a swamp.
Lots can change in the next couple of years, – but absent some dramatic negative change the tide is likely to favor him.
With respect to 2018 – Republicans are not as unpopular right now as after the shutdown.
And yet 2014 was a big GOP year.
Further the generic ballot has very low predictive powers.
We have had myriads of elections since 2016.
Republicans have done better than expected in nearly all.
There are local issues in many that mask things,
Bur there is no evidence of an 8pt (or even a 1pt) bias against Republicans at the polls so far.
Again absent unicorns, it is likely that the GOP will do better in the 2018 general than the special elections.
I also think – my own personal crystal ball gazing, that the traditional first midterm blowback is likely going t be small – not because of Trump but because the “Great sorting” is nearly complete.
That makes congressional and senate seats less volatile.
I could be wrong, but that is my bet.
I expect small losses for the GOP in the house and about a 4 seat gain in the Senate.
And absent a recession (or a stroke) Trump is easily re-elected in 2020 regardless of who Dems run.
There are some caveats. Dems have clearly decided to move toward actually apealing to women. That is a welcome move. It is expected that we are going to see a huge number of femal congressional candidates in 2018. I have seen some evidence in my state that women are prepared to vote heavily for women candidates – regardless of party – presuming they are not mired in corruption and slut shaming.
This past year has been horrible for democrats on Women.
But Democrats are trying to turn that arround – and thus far Republicans are less inclined.
I fully expect the democrats to make a hard push for women in 2018.
And I think it could be successful.
So should the coffee house be allowed to bar people with MAGA hats ?
As a Libertarian aren’t you in favor of a privately owned business being able to serve or not serve who they want? I thought you weren’t in favor of present anti discrimination laws in place for race, religuin, sexual orientation?
And presently are there any laws prohibiting a business from refusing entry to Republicans, or Democrats? Or Redheaded persons?
You are not obligated to read anything I write.
But complaining about how much I write when it is obvious you have read little or none of it is pretty bad.
Discrimination means CHOICE.
Government may not discriminate.
outside of government short of force or fraud you may do as you please.
Which means Chick-a-filet can oppose gay marraige and I can boycott Chick-a-filet.
In the case before the court – Master Cake can disriminate against gay couples,
Wedding cakes, of the shelf cakes, bagels whatever they wish.
And I can discriminate against Master Cake by boycotting them.
Business and “privately owned” are one and the same.
“Public accomidations laws” come in a variety of forms.
All should have been found unconstitutional.
Most DO NOT specify protected classes that you can not discriminate against.
They work the opposite – they basically say you have to serve everyone
EXCEPT where you can provide a viewpoint neutral justification.
Public Accomodation Laws only apply to businesses that serve the general public.
Not all businesses – but they would apply to a coffee shop.
It is likely this coffee shop is running affoul of public accomodation laws.
But I want Public Accomdation laws gone.
If you wish to descriminate against Republicans or Red Heads – be my guest – and I will discriminate against you.
This is Glenn Greenwald from the Intercept on the recent Fake news stories.
This is NOT Fox, this is not Judge Jeanie, this is the reporter who met with and broke the Snowden Story.
While Greenwald and I are ideologically different he is practically a hero of mine.
Greenwald has integrity and is consistent. He does nto change his positions based on what tribe is in control.
Rand Paul opposing surveilance re-authorization.
Dhlii Dave,
I have read your posts above. I appreciate what you have shared about yourself, your views, and your approach to debate, et cetera. I have complemented your intelligence and insights numerous times in the years I have visited TNM. I have also written a number of times that I agree with many of your views. Despite my frustration with your “manner,” I do value your insights. I say this to re-iterate that I do not wish to attack you in whole, or attack you the person.
I disagree with you about several things, including your lumping together of nearly all of “government” as a disaster and necessary evil to be avoided (note I said “nearly all,” as I know you see a very limited role for government), disagree about the degree of your faith in free markets, disagree about your…shall I say rather “cut and dry” or “stubborn” (not the best ways to say that) denunciations of “the left,” and other points.
The point I wish to argue here and now is related to the appropriateness and manner of your posting here at TNM in general.
The conclusion of my argument is this: The manner of your posting violates unwritten rules and expectations relating to discourse here at TNM. Furthermore, the manner of your posting somewhat weakens the credibility of your arguments here at TNM. If you are most interested in arriving at the truth through argument or debate, then it follows that you would be interested in correcting anything that hurts the credibility of your arguments.
You have 319 posts on this thread. Yes, I scrolled and counted. Not only are you the most frequent poster on this thread and nearly ALL of the threads at TNM in which you have taken part, but also your threads are consistently the longest. Voluminous. Most frequent and longest. Also, you are the one who will post 5, 6, 7 posts in a row. Voluminous. This is one of the reasons others here will hurl insults at you or leave in frustration, et cetera. That is counter-productive to debate and synthesis of ideas toward truth. Now to the premises of my argument. You and others may decide if my argument is valid and sound.
Premise #1: Many human activities have rules. (Note that I did not say ALL human activities have rules.) The countless examples include the game of chess (e.g. the bishops move diagonally on their own color squares, etc.) to American Football with its out of bounds lines and so many rules that they require referees and linesmen and instant replay to sort through them and “enforce” them. I believe it is beyond debate and must be accepted that “many human activities have rules”.
Premise #2: Some rules for human activities are written, and some are unwritten but understood by consensus. For this we will use four (4) contexts to illustrate unwritten rules of behavior: a football game, a supermarket, church services, and a classroom.
There are no signs posted at football stadiums to inform the fans/attendees that they are permitted to yell and scream and shout, etc. It is understood. When someone crosses the line and throws a beer on someone’s head, then the adjacent fans may punish such an infraction or the security guards and police may need to get involved.
The rules of behavior at a supermarket are also not posted. People know it is acceptable to talk and laugh or push their carts in silence. If a customer yells loudly to a friend who is nine aisles away, the other customers may think this rude or out of the norm, but they will tolerate it and go about their shopping. If, however, a customer continues yelling for a half hour, this will be a disruption, a violation of unwritten rules, and store personnel and the on-site manager will have the unpleasant duty of dealing with the disrupter. If the disrupter were to show up every day and cause a similar disturbance, he or she will be banned from the store.
At church services, when the celebrant is leading the congregation in prayer or speaking his or her sermon, it is expected that the people in the congregation are quiet. People talking loudly is a distraction. Babies crying will be tolerated for a time, as babies are not always easy to control, but the expectation is that parents will get up and take a crying baby away as a courtesy to the other people in the congregation. This unwritten rule is somewhat in flux in recent times. The church of my childhood had a sound-proof “crying room” with big glass to view the mass and speakers pumping in the priest’s voice from his microphone. These days there is an increase in young parents allowing their babies to cry and cry and cry, (apparently they didn’t get the unwritten memo!) and adjacent parishioners begin fidgeting and getting angry and then infuriated, and sometimes someone will finally ask the offending parent to please remover their child for the sake of the others.
The classroom is perhaps the most relatable example to our situation at TNM. Who among us has not attended a class, either in elementary school, high school, undergraduate or graduate at University, in which there was the guy who dominated the classroom with his questions and interruptions and disagreements with the teacher or professor? It is tolerated for awhile with rolled eyes and frowns. Is the disrupting student breaking any laws and committing a crime? No. Is the vociferous and dominating student breaking any unwritten rules or expectations about classroom behavior? Yes. It is inappropriate behavior because it disrupts the flow of the instruction, robs the others of their turns to speak, etc.
You, Dave, have stated above and elsewhere at TNM, and I’m paraphrasing here, that there are not restrictions on quantity at TNM, and also that you prefer “stream of consciousness” over summary or succinct posts, etc. (Please get the gist and don’t de-construct my words here.)
OK, you can deliver your points better in longer streams of consciousness. Understood. But here are some of the unwritten expectations and some suggestions for you:
(By the way, I fully understand that you and other posters here may wish to tell me to go shit in my hat, as the nature of my detailed argument against the nature of your posting is in itself a violation of the unwritten rules of posting—yes, it’s a little icky and uncomfortable and people may well ask, who the hell does this Pat guy think he is anyway? He’s more annoying with his pontificating than Deluge Dave.)
If you are going to post a relatively LONG post, then don’t post another one and another one. Give people a chance to respond to the numerous points inherent in a long post.
Sometimes, when other posters are going back and forth about a point, choose to NOT insert your unique Libertarian views and statistics. Have the courtesy to let the others push the discussion to places other than your Libertarian principles.
Don’t argue with everything because it makes you seem that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than trying to arrive at productive truth.
That’s all. Just hold back a little, Dave. That’s all I’m saying. I know I would appreciate the courtesy and I think others would to. Can I force you to do so? No. But I think you know that just because you are ABLE to do something (post voluminously) doesn’t mean you should.
Now I know I should be quiet for awhile.
Hi Pat,
Very interesting comments about Dave and unwritten rules. I have some opinions on that subject myself but for strategic reasons I plan to temporarily withhold them. I would like to steer your comments into what I believe is a somewhat comparable analogy with the goal of going back to my position on solicitation and venue. Scenario: suppose a couple spent a good sum of money for a fancy restaurant meal. During their meal an unappealing person disturbs them and starts making one sickening proposition after another, for example say he offers to pay $2, to spit into their salad, they refuse the offer, but he keeps making counter offers or other offers. $4 to smear snot on their steak, ect. When, if ever, would it be appropriate to use the force of law/government to stop this person that is ruining their meal? Pat, I take it you are having a moment of self-imposed silence, I commend your approach. So if you are inclined not to respond at this time, let me guess that I’m pretty sure if you were in such a scenario that the offending person might need medical attention and you might end up answering assault charges. But let us say, these are two frail individuals, not inclined to take matters into their own physical hands, should their only redress be to the restaurant owner for not stopping the annoying solicitor on the owner’s property? (Unfortunately in my fictitious scenario, the owner of the restaurant is an extreme libertarian who tells the customers they are free to not comeback to his restaurant but he will not refund them anything.) To answer my own question, I would have a very hard time drawing the line as to when such solicitation should be a crime in making unsolicited offers to someone eating at a restaurant, but there must be a line somewhere. Leaping from that scenario to back where I started a week or so ago, just as I believe there should be some kind of legal protection for the restaurant eater, although I confess I am hard pressed to define what that protection would be. I restate I am in favor of existing laws that make it illegal for perspective employers or, after the fact employers to solicit sexual favors of employees. I will also restate I am not against allowing solicitation in certain venues, such as craigslist ads , websites, or such.
Mike Hatcher
Mike;
Context matters.
First there is a harm in the context you note.
But NOT a harm that reaches the level where government may use force.
Resturaunts get to decide the acceptable non-violent behavior the tolerate – there is no need for government.
One of the failures of the modern world is to jump right to making laws about whatever we do not like. I would strongly suggest reading JS Mill “On liberty” is is available on the web as a PDF for free, it is pretty much the seminal work on issues of liberty. One of the things Mill notes is that Democracies – in any form are ultimately the most heavily prone to use government to impose broad constraints – to attempt to convert manners to law.
In your example if one person in a resturaunt is disrupting you there is a long escalating list of options.
Politely ask them to be quiet.
Complain to the manager.
If the manager shares your issue they will ask them to be quiet.
If it continues, they will ask them to leave.
If they refuse they will have security or the police remove them
Being loud in a resturaunt is NOT a justification for the use of force.
Tresspassing is. When you are asked to leave someone else’s property and refuse to do so you are tresspassing.
When you limit government to protecting our ACTUAL rights, most of the time you get the outcome you want.
But when you start trying to get what you want by ever more rules – you generally end up with a mess.
The same rights that allow the resturaunt owner to have a noisy and disruptive patron removed, also allow the cake bake to choose who he will sell his cakes to.
Refusing service to a disruptive customer is no different from refusing service to one who is gay, black, or shoeless.
Mike;
You are delving far too deeply into unicorns.
Yes, freedom means that bad things are possible – though they are possible even with tyranny.
A “libertarian” resturaunt manager is not going to let patrons spit in other patrons food, or make them disgusting suggestions.
I can not grasp why everyone seem to think that government is the only constraint on undesireable conduct.
The resturaunt owner is after his own self interest – and that is nearly always the interests of his patrons. The Resturant is his property – that means unlike government he can impose whatever rules he wishes – including excluding people.
I have tried to “model” libertarianism in my own reactions here on TNM.
Rick can ban me – I hope he does not, but it is his right,
He can impose rules on the size of posts, the number per day, the language that can be used.
I would suggest that he think carefully about rules that increase his own burdens and require subjective judgements on his part. They tend to go badly.
Regardless, I have tired hard to get people here to understand – just because government can not or should not regulate something – does not mean it is unregulated.
Just becomes government can not make rules outside of narrow areas – does nto mean they can be no rules.
In your own private space – and private space is all space that is not the domain of government, you may have your own rules. Those rules can be formal, or informal, arbitrary or carefully constructed.
And just as actions have consequences – so do rules.
Pat’s post skirted the issue of why rules exist and why they are different in differnt contexts.
Pat presumed that the rules that exist in a given context or space are inherently correct.
If the resturaunt owner does not have the rules to ensure his customers the experience they want – he loses customers. Conversely if he has rules that his customers find too restrictive – he loses customers.
Further it is reasonable and feasible for one resturaunt to have different rules from another.
As they may have different target customers.
McD’s is about getting customers in and out as fast as possible, the rules of “decorum” are pretty narrow. You do not expect to have a quite candlelight dinner with your paramour at McD’s
Another reason for limited government is that private actors can excercise discretion they need not apply the rules consistently, nor does each private actor have to have the same rules.
Government rules must be narrow clear and bright
We do not want to use force ambiguously.
and to the extent possible uniform – the exact same rules apply always and everywhere.
When discretion is necescary when judgement is involved, when the rules can not be perfectly clear, when they should not be the same from context to context – then the rules should not be in the hands of government.
The level of success of government is a fact, It is our relative perceptions of that fact that we disagree on.
If our media wished to serve us well it would do a far better job of reporting on government.
The case that government nearly never does well, and normally does between poorly and the opposite of what it intended is pretty damning.
Further major aspects of that are actually inevitable – the incentives with respect to government are wrong, and the forces that would bring about correction are typically not present.
As Madison noted in federalist 51,
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Democracy is NOT sufficient to control government.
I have pretty relentlessly attacked government is incompetent. You can find thousands of posts of mine addressing that. There is nearly infinite anecdotal evidence whether it is the recent post of the officer murdering a traveling salesmen, or it is the mess involved in the FBI/DOJ at the moment – you can beleive whatever you wish about Trump/Russia, you can beleive that Mueller is honest or not, but you can not beleive that the myriads of things that have been uncovered represent good government and competence.
But I like to find ways of making more encompasing arguments – to look at a system from the outside and to evaluate its results, because every system has some successes and some failures. Government is enormous there will always be myriads of examples of failure.
There will also be a few examples of success.
There are really only two fundimental measures with anything we get from others.
Is it what we would choose if we were free to make whatever choice we wanted ?
Is the value delivered equal of greater than the value demanded ?
Those are the questions we subcounsciously ask ourselves with ever single exchange we engage in our lives.
So overall – is what the federal government does for us each year worth $4T ?
If we were free to choose would we choose differently ?
I do not think there is any question at all that by that measure – the only one that matters, that government is a failure.
According to polls that have been relatively consistent throughout my life, americans beleive that government wastes more than 50% of what it spends.
According to 4th ranked IDEAS ResPec ranked economist Robert Barro of Harvard who keeps the worlds largest public database on the efficiency of government – the public is generous.
In comparison to the free market, which delivers more than $1 of value on average fo $1 of spending (it actually must do so or we would not have economic growth or increase in standard of living), the overall economic value delivered by a $1 of federal spending is between $.25 and $.35
That the best government ever does is about $.85 for military spending in time of war.
We can argue about whether government is a “disaster”. There is no argument that government is just about the least efficient and effective means to do anything. That failure in government is more common and greater than outside government.
There are myriads of arguments for limited government – this is the pragmatic one, and it is damning.
When we can do something multiple ways, we should not make the worst choice.
From a purely pragmatic position we should not use government to do anything that is either not necescary of can not be done another way.
The more philosophical argument is we should not use force to do anything where force is not necescary.
I do not expect that government can do well the few things I think that only govenrment can do.
But I do not oppose govenrment doing what only government can do, and which is an absolute necescity. But there are only a few things that meet that criteria.
When we use government to do more than is absolutely necescary – we are stealling (actually twice). We are acting collectively to do something that we would accept as immoral if we did individually.
I am going to start at the end.
I have stated repeatedly – this is Rick’s space. He can censor it as he pleases.
He can impose rules or not.
With respect to your examples – context actually matters a great deal. The unwritten rules for different contexts exist BECAUSE they are necescary in that context – either the goal of the context is not possible without those rules, or there is a real resource that is both limited and shared.
None of those factors exist in the context of blog comments. You are trying to impose the rules that apply on earth to Jupiter or Mars without thought to why those rules exist.
Some apply, some do not, some are changed.
It is “rude” to shout and interrupt in a classroom – because in the real world only one person can speak at a time and be heard. It is not “rude” merely because you choose to be offended.
It is “rude” to consume all of a limited resource without the consent of others.
You can not consume all of an infinite resource.
Addressing your argument regarding my conduct is an excellent demonstration of one of the ways govenrment fails.
There are myriads of problems with unwritten rules – but we manage with them because their is no force used to compel conformance. Absent force their problems and conflicts are inconsequential. We do not share the same understanding of what those rules are.
Outside the context of govenrment you and I CHOOSE to conform to the unwritten rules of the context. We often CHOOSE conform to our neighbors version of the rules even though we beleive those rules are wrong to avoid conflict. Regardless, the point is we CHOOSE, and we often CHOOSE NO!.
I would hope from the above that you should already grasp that your argument fails.
But one small step further – you properly note that unwritten rules are context dependent.
First some of the “unwritten rules” from your examples, are laws – they are not unwritten.
You may not assault another person – in any context at all. Laws are almost never context dependent. If you throw a beer bottle at someone – you should be concerned about the police and jail. And if fans beat you up – then they too should be concerned about police and jail.
The rules at church, at a grocery store, in a classroom are each different – and in some instances those rules are written – and enforced with actual force.
The rules are context dependent because what is a problem in one context is not in another.
We can not all speak at once in the real world. The rules that apply where there are real shared limited resources, as well as real fixed objectives do not exist in a forum on the internet.
In a classroom – my speach precludes that of another – but in that same classroom my THOUGHT does not preclude that of another.
We are expected to speak one at a time. But there are no constraints on whether we must listen or whether we can all think at the same time. We do not have unwritten rules to constrain people where no constraint is necescary.
The point which you clearly do not grasp is that different contexts have different rules and though our unwritten rules are often self contradictory they are also evolving and not stupid.
We do not constrained people from speaking all at once in a classrooom willy nilly.
We do so because in a classroom we can only listen to one voice at a time.
You bandy about words like “rude” as if it is inherently objectively meaningful.
But it is not – what you think is rude, I do not.
Your unwritten rules are both context dependent and evolving – because all “rude” means is “I am offended”.
Whether people care that another is offended ALSO depends on context.
Most of us care less that some stranger at a football game is offended – generally tolerated conduct in a huge public venue is constrained primarily by “the law” not social conventions – unwritten rules. While in a classroom, at a church, out to dinner at a resturaunt all of us have numerous reasons to be limit the extent to which we “offend” others.
We do so because there are potential real consequences of offending others.
A church, classroom, resturaunt, grocery store are someone else’s private property.
They are free to bar you from their property.
Those we encounter in a church, classroom, resturaunt, grocery are all people that in a variety of ways we depend on or may come to depend on
We do not engage in conduct that some others are offended by – even where their offense is stupid, because there is a cost to offending them.
I have noted that I do not post under my real name anywhere on the internet.
I am in business. One of the most prominent Climate Bloggers in the world, also has a business unassociated with climate. He has found that as his blog became popular he had to dissassociate himself from it. Because his clients – even those who agree with him are completely uninterested in being associated with controversy.
I have not said that “stream of consciousness posts” deliver my points more effectively.
I have said that I have weighed the cost of being concise, and in this context I am not willing to pay it.
“I have said that I have weighed the cost of being concise, and in this context I am not willing to pay it.”
In other words: “F— you, I am a selfish bastard, and darn it I like myself”.
“I have said that I have weighed the cost of being concise, and in this context I am not willing to pay it.”
In other words: “F— you, I am a selfish bastard, and darn it I like myself”.
More accurate Rephrase
“F#$k yo, YOU selfish bastard”.
I am not the one demanding you conform to my expectations.
Your posts offend me atleast as much as mine offend you.
One last point by way of example.
Unwritten rules are violated all the time. I fully comprehend that many here are offended by aspects of my posts.
Is being offended the standard ?
I am “offended” by the posts of others here – and I am not alone in that.
My recourse is to express my offense – which I often do.
That is it.
Sometimes and in some contexts offending others has consequences – and we therefore choose not to do it.
Most of us would not speak to each other face to face as we write in our posts here.
But in this context, those constraints do not exist.
Many blogs do censor their comments. I am not aware of any blog that censor’s based on volume. The most common forms of censorship on other blogs would not effect me, but would ensnare other posters here.
Rick is free to impose whatever rules he wishes. He can do so arbitrarily, or he can do so using any standard that he values.
There is another blog that I used to post on frequently.
It has a scoring system – your posts are limited in size based on the number of upvotes you have.
But there were also down votes and other posters could flag you – resulting in a review of your posts and possibly getting banned.
I started posting there – initial posts were limited to 256 characters, the first time and it took me about a day to get enough upvotes to have unlimited post size.
In about a month I was one of the top posters by upvote count.
In about 6 months I was banned – because left wing nuts do not like anyone demonstrating they are wrong – and the tilt of the site was pretty far left. I was banned for posting under a pseudonym – because they could not find any other rule I had violated, of course nearly all the other users were pseudonyms but that still violated policy (actually the changed the policy because initially they understood the value of anonymous speach).
So I signed up again using a new pseudonym, and I had 10,000 upvotes within a week, and they banned me again in a month.
And I tried one more time and managed 10,000 upvotes in 48 hours, and they banned me in a week.
To the extent this has a point I would suggest that it is this:
I think many here have expressed that they find value in some of my posts.
Many – even the same people have expressed that they find some aspects of my posting annoying.
Guess what ? That is how an actual free society works.
You can constrain others – with laws, when they are causing actual harm.
That is not the case.
You can attempt to constrain others by expressing your approval or displeasure – just as you can do with McDonald’s.
I can bemoan Roby’s use of ad hominem, and other fallacies and his efforts to make everything about him, or me, or his failure to actually make arguments.
I can piss and moan because Jay does nothing but Trumpocalypse posts.
My efforts to get Jay and Roby to conform to my wishes have been an abject failure.
That is life.
Rick is the only person here who can take his displeasure at how someone else posts and do anything beyond try to persuade them to change.
“I can piss and moan because Jay does nothing but Trumpocalypse posts.”
A gross misrepresentation. Fake Comment! Inaccurate observation. Dumb disservice. Petulant Prevarication. Dave, you’re metamorphosing into Da Donald!
““I can piss and moan because Jay does nothing but Trumpocalypse posts.”
A gross misrepresentation. Fake Comment! Inaccurate observation. Dumb disservice. Petulant Prevarication. Dave, you’re metamorphosing into Da Donald!”
A pretty accurate representation that I think others would agree with.
Regardless, you missed the point.
Each of us does not control the posts of others.
Ok, my promised strategically delayed reaction, I actually was going to try to prove a point by having posted my comment first under “open letter to moderates” as I was sure no one would read it there. However, I did get a response, much to my surprise, anyway, here it is:
Part 1, My defense of Dave’s comments
1. We already have a proven mechanism for reducing\eliminating Dave’s comments if we wanted to, the power is with us, so we need to stop fussing at him, and guess what, it wasn’t even a coordinated boycott. Dave has not commented for over 5 years, under the Rick’s heading of Capitalism, why do you suppose? Has he given up on Capitalism? Did he win everyone over to his way of thinking? Of course not, the reason he stopped commenting under Rick’s capitalism issue is because people stopped responding to him there. Rick posts a new article and the old article posts evaporate really fast because we all move on. Trust me, I may not post that much, but the more you respond to what I write, the more I trend towards writing more. The lesser my responses, the less I post. Even if I might go a month between posts or 5 minutes between posts, we should be aware that the amount of reactions we get either encourage or discourage us.
2. It is really not that hard to avoid reading one person’s comments if you wanted to. I know firsthand, I have on more than one occasion proclaimed, and then carried out a personal boycott of a poster over a certain period of time, I think I boycotted JB for awhile, but I forget, maybe some others. The point is, I really don’t believe it is that hard to bypass comments one does not want to read. It is NOT analogous to a room where you are trying to hear someone else but can’t avoid hearing someone else shouting.
Part 2: My attack of Dave’s comments
1.You impede communication through technical limitations. I usually read and write from work where there is quite a bit of email restriction, thus I always have to click on comments, all 600 of them, half being yours, and scroll, and scroll, and scroll, what a pain.
2.You impede discourse with your volume, ME: Dave, yesterday you said XYZ, Dave: No, perhaps you misunderstood. Me: Ok, let me go back to your actual quote, OH Crud! Do I have to read two hours worth of stuff to find it again? Ahhh, forget it, wasn’t that important anyway.
3. You weaken the value of your arguments through the simple principle of supply and demand, you supply more than what is demanded, thus the value of your comments plummet. If and when you get caught up in one of your work projects, and we don’t hear from you for weeks or more, I for one, get hungry to hear what you have to say again. But when the market is flooded with your product, the comments become useless trash.
Mike Hatcher
Excellent take, MH.
Pat, you said it all and Dave has heard it all MANY before. My take is some people just say: “f— it, I do whatever because I can”. This goes for the Trumps of the world and the Daves.
He does because he can. Whether it is a horny dog humping your leg or someone clogging the buffet line or a commenter hog, it begs for control where self control ids lacking. What bugs me the most, and I made my first comment on TNM, over seven years ago, is that we then get permission: “you are free not to read, blah blah”. Yes I am free to go to another restaurant, chow line, noisy chatty gym, etc., but I CHOOSE NOT TO, isn’t that OK with libertarians (he ruins their image for me) or normal people?
dduck, the issue is and the problem is Dave has some very good arguments on some issues. At least they are issues that one can debate. But given the length and quantity of the post, if there are many like myself, if the e-mail does not say “in response to Ron P” many times I delete it without reading.
But with Dave and Jay, polar opposites on the political scale, they overwhelm readers with the quantity of information they post. With Dave, he is so informed on many issues and has facts to back up most of what he says, he is thinking so fast that he writes what he is thinking and that leads to multiple pointed comments in answer to one issue. There is no editing of a comment and that ends up boring the reader with information that has nothing to do with the original comment or is just a repeat of a previous comments from that day or month. He reminds me of a couple college professors that I had that were so smart they rambled on and on, with no coherent thinking, jumping from one subject to another and when exam time came, they had to grade on a curve because no one could get a passing grade due to their AADD
With Jay, he is doing it just to be obnoxious and tries to convince people of his positions just by overwhelming the readers by reposting other multiple tweets and comments by someone else in an effort to make a point long ago made.
At least Dave responds (maybe too much) when a question is asked, a point made or an issue is being debated. We can debate if that is good or bad compared to not getting any response at all from others commenting here.
With all due respect, Ron, it all comes down to a lack of respect or knowledge of boundaries, which is called being rude.
“With all due respect, Ron, it all comes down to a lack of respect or knowledge of boundaries, which is called being rude.”
Absolutely.
We are not in a diner eating together. I owe you no respect, and you owe me none.
Whatever respect you receive here is earned by what you post.
There is no right to respect.
What boundaries ? Have I intruded in your personal life ?
Have I presumed to read you mind ?
Have I insulted you personally – rather than merely your ideas ?
Have I transformed a debate about issues into a debate about your style, or just you ?
Have I imposed any real cost on your life ?
I take atleast as much offense at the posts of many others here – and with far more justification.
I think it is “rude” to insult others rather than their arguments.
I think it is very “rude” to tell others how to conduct their lives.
I think it is incredibly “rude” to threaten to use force to do so.
If “rudeness” is the standard – look in a mirror.
If lack of boundaries is the standard – look in the mirror.
If lack of respect is the standard – look in the mirror.
One example encapsulates nearly all.
I have absolutely never tried to “:diagnose” someone else here.
In what world is that not reprehensible ?
Just to be clear – since you all seem daft about what freedom means.
I am not arguing that you can not do so.
Just that you are behaving far more badly than anything you accuse me of when you do.
Freedom is sometimes disrespectful, and without boundaries, and “rude”
You fully accept that when it is you that is disrespectful, crossing boundaries and being “rude”
but seem to feel that the tolerance and freedom you demand with respect to yourself is not owed to others. when you feel you are not respected, or your boundaries are not respected, or you are being treated rudely.
We are essentially debating a bit of PC here,
And the fixation on this twisted ideology of tolerance only for some ideas – Political Correctness, is what cost the left the past election.
“With Jay, he is doing it just to be obnoxious and tries to convince people of his positions just by overwhelming the readers by reposting other multiple tweets and comments by someone else in an effort to make a point long ago made.”
I post as many links from tweets for the following reason – Balance:
3/4 of the comments come from Dave.
Of those, 3/4 of the responses come from you or Priscilla, both of you RIGHT of Moderate, like him. The excessive weight of all your right slanted posts have turned the New Moderate into the New Unmoderate.
I don’t have time to respond to 20 or 30 or more of those unbalanced comments, it’s like responding to a right of center circle jerk on a loop. The tweets I post are relevant to current issues that reflect a different POV than your reiterated OVER AND OVER repetitions, and often better expressed than I have time to do on the fly. And it’s disingenuous of you to suggest I’m repeating points over and over when YOU frequently do it
But I’ll stop posting here if tRUMP RESIGNS.
And I’ll post a A LOT LESS if the blog becomes more balanced toward the center, and the Loquacious Libertarian stops running his mouth so excessively.
Is there a formal defintion of “moderate” I am unaware of ?
By my definition – you are not moderate.
You say that I am on the right.
That is false.
I am SOMETIMES on the right of the issues that get raised here.
I am to the left of you on issues that we do not often discuss.
You have made it clear in your own posts that your views are only aligned with those on the left on some issues.
Get a clue – that applies to others.
I have taken to posting cartoons and videos that make my arguments from other sources.
When doing so as a specific response that is alot of work finding something that best responds.
Regardless, I have no interest in you “I have no time” nonense.
that is your choice.
No one forces you to respond.
As to “unballanced” comments – look in the mirror.
Your links to “tweets” are a whose who of neo-cons.
I have not identified as republican or democrat for more than a decade.
I am so happy not having to defend the idiocy that each party engages in.
Near the top of those that I would not be caught dead defending are neo-cons.
Do you really want to be in bed with Dick Cheney and Max Boot ?
You might as well be linking to Mao Tweets.
And you think somehow you are balanced ?
Yes, I am repetive – you would get less and less of the same thing over and over if you did not make the same stupid arguments and errors and mistakes over and over.
I am just as tired of making the same counter arguments as you are of hearing them.
So maybe you could address them rather than ignore them.
Maybe we could actually argue the issues rather than rant about style.
Whether my arguments are booring and repetitious is irrelevant.
Whether they are valid is what matters.
Insulting the argument is not refuting it.
No one BTW is asking you to stop posting.
No one is stopping you from posting the same garbage you post all the time.
But do not expect sympathy when you complain about what others post.
Ron;
I thank you for both the compliments and the defense.
But I want to note something, while I hope I have articulated the argument for pretty much unlimited free speach in this forum,
The validity of that argument does not rest on being articulate, well informed or any of the other compliments you have paid me.
I understand that you would be even more aggrevated if my arguments were bad, if I did not know what I was talking about, ……
But that would change little.
We do not tolerate things that annoy is merely because they are articulate or knowledgeable,.
But because freedom has value in and of itself.
It is important that we hear from Nazi’s and Antifa. Whether they are articulate or not.
We are the more better off if they do offer the best possible argument for their views.
But even if they do not,
Our rights, our liberty, our freedom are no greater than the least we allow those we despise the most.
dduck12;
There is not a single person who posts here who conforms to the expectations of every single other poster.
I do not conform to your expections – well you do not conform to mine.
I am saying “F#$k it” to yours, you are saying “F#$k it” to mine
You too “do it because you can”
You too lack “self control” – or more accurately – you will not control yourself in the way I desire – just as I will not control myself in the way you desire.
No one has said you must go elsewhere.
Free choice does nto mean you must leave if you are offended.
What it does mean is that whether you leave or stay you may not use force to end what you perceive as offensive.
Part of the reason I ruin the image of libertarians for you is that your argument is litterally nonsense.
You are absoltuely completely clueless as to what freedom means.
You seem to think that the fact that you have the right to leave or stay,
that you also have the right to stay AND have everything as you please.
Or that offering you the choice to leave – is somehow forcing you to take it.
You refuse to use words as they mean. It is not force when you do not have the perfect choices.
While you are debating “me” – this is the same debate about EVERY issue.
You are not really complaining about my lack of self control – but your lack of control over not merely me, but everyone else.
I have absolutely zero doubt that it you, roby, or Jay made and enforced “the rules” I would be gone.
You honestly think you are entitled to a world where you get to decide everything – including everything about everyone else’s life.
I keep citing JS Mills’s as I am in the process or rereading it – here is a copy if you are inclined.
On Liberty is short – about 100 pages. For something 150 years old it is both readable, and applicable to the moment.
It addresses all the issues we raise here and many we do not.
Click to access liberty.pdf
Mill is generally recognized as one of the 5 most brilliant people in all of human history.
His calculated IW is significantly higher than Einsteins.
Wow, impeccable logic, Mill would be proud.
Great books certainly lead to greater common sense for some, not all.
“Oh, he insulted me, I will write a nice long reply and straighten him out, he doesn’t know how to argue or have free choices.” Now where is that neat quote from Plato, that will skewer his simplistic remarks- I should be debating intellectuals not these lower level humans.”
“Wow, impeccable logic, Mill would be proud.
Great books certainly lead to greater common sense for some, not all.
“Oh, he insulted me, I will write a nice long reply and straighten him out, he doesn’t know how to argue or have free choices.” Now where is that neat quote from Plato, that will skewer his simplistic remarks- I should be debating intellectuals not these lower level humans.””
I think it is a mistake to insult people – because it is ineffective.
I have never said you are not free to do it.
In fact I just argued the contrary.
You are just as free to hurl insults as I am to make long arguments.
If you wish to sound credible with respect to Mill;s “on liberty” I suggest you read it.
I provided a link.
If you think I am misrepresenting it, that should be readily apparent.
I have no more right to “straighten you out” than you have to do so to me.
You are unpersuaded – neither am I. The only difference is the arguments we have made.
You remarks are not simplistic. They are wrong, and it is self evident.
I am debating you, the assumption is that I think the debate is worthwhile or I would not be doing so.
Trying to read someone else’s mind is stupid and nearly always wrong, in this case self evidently so.
If my arguments cause you to feel things I have not said – those thoughts are more likely in YOUR mind than mine.
I know nothing about you but what you post here. I try hard not to pretend to know more.
In fact I mostly try to respond to your specific post, not my overall perception of you.
Regardless, I am not responsible for the flaws and weaknesses in your arguments.
Take responsibility for you own arguments,
It comes with responsibility for your own life.
You can whine endlessly about something you have no control over, or you can do something that is in your power that you think is productive.
You want a choice you do not have – control over others.
The Grabber’s victims are coming forward again, demanding justice.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-accusers-press-conference-sexual-misconduct-post-megyn-kelly-interview/
Nikki Haley confuses me. Yesterday on one Sunday show she sounded like a typical Trump mouthpiece and on another one, here, said women should be heard, which ain’t exactly what Trump thinks, or says: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nikki-haley-on-trump-accusers-women-who-accuse-anyone-should-be-heard-and-dealt-with/
Haley’s comment was that ALL the allegations and accusations should be heard and evaluated.
She essentially called for a congressional inquiry into its members.
But when specifically asked she agreed that the same standard applied to Trump accusers.
Haley may have confused you because you assume that the world divides between those who are Trump mouthpeices and those who are not.
In my experience those who are surprised when someone speaks out inconsistent with their tribe – are those who could not do so themselves.
There have been very little in the way of congressional investigation into the misconduct of its members. and to the extent there has been it has resulted in coverups and payoffs.
I am not actually sure that the congress has the authority to investigate the non-criminal conduct of a president prior to holding office, and outside of his duties as president.
A “non-partisan” investigation into Trump is by definition partisan.
I would support a more general congressional investigation into sexual harrassment by politicians.
Though I still do not think they can reach non-criminal conduct on the part of Trump or anyone else outside of office.
That does not mean it can not be made public or that people can not demand resignations.
She says don’t hold your breath for it, but #PresidentPooPoo should resign
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/trump-resign-gillibrand-sexual-assault/index.html
Jay;
There are things that we do agree on.
Good!
I have been consistently arguing for even more of this.
In fact I think I am mostly alone even on TNM in wanting even more of this #metoo.
As I have repeated OVER and OVER – I did nto vote for Trump – this is big part of why.
But I not merely want more coming forward regarding Trump – but just plain MORE.
Anyone who has engaged in this type of conduct should be outed.
Absolutely there will be some false allegations, but we can sort that out and if there are too many that will undermine the credibility of the rest.
Clinton did not resign – I would not expect Trump to.
I think both should have. I am glad Franken did – it is the right thing to do – though he has done so while pretty much denying everything anyway.
But there is a difference between what someone SHOULD do, and what the MUST do.
Bill Clinton Should have resigned, Trump Should have dropped out or resigned.
Hillary Clinton never should have run, Franken should have resigned.
Only one of those did what they should have.
But none of them were obligated to do anything.
In the current world of lousy choices, I will select shorter obnoxious comments over meaningful, intellectual, philosophical meanderings when they are in a s—– tide.
Life is too short to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find the golden words in a labyrinthian haystack that will win the discussion and vanquish all opponents. Ha.
dduck said:
“It all comes down to a lack of respect or a knowledge of boundaries, which is called being rude”
I agree.
Well, y’all, I tried one last time reach Dave.
Dave, I find much of your recent responses to be ridiculous. It doesn’t pass for communication. You would try to kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer and a machine gun. You aren’t an intellectual boxer. You are outside the ring at an unreachable distance hurling foreign objects into the ring at others. I must ignore you from now on.
From time to time I’ll enjoy exchanges with others. Good night!
“ You would try to kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer and a machine gun.”
Wanna bet he tries to kill your quip with a squadron, a battalion, an army of replies…
“”You would try to kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer and a machine gun.”
Wanna bet he tries to kill your quip with a squadron, a battalion, an army of replies…”
The mosquito’s here do not die if you nuke them.
Somehow bad arguments manage to live forever.
Pat;
I am truly sorry you feel that way.
I am not going to repeat my arguments beyond:
Given that I am quite close to litterally parroting John Stuart Mill from “On Liberty”.
which is pretty much the definitive work on free expresion, I think it is lubicrous to claim my responses are ridiiculous.
I did not shift the topic to “digressions on Dave’s posting”.
I have yet to work out exactly how I want to deal with things here as they become personal.
I have been responding to Roby by following him into his dark world where the issue is not relevant, only insulting the person making the argument.
It is very hard to respond to a personal attack without the response being a personal attack.
Further I am not willing to refrain from insulting bad ideas, just because it is wrong to insult people.
But almost no one here can distinguish between “you are an idiot” and “your argument is idiotic”.
And regardless, even I get fed up with stupid arguments and occasionally attack the person making them.
The only reason I am even engaging this debate over “Dave’s posts” is because responding gives my the opportunity to make arguments about freedom that I want to make.
And it puts it into a concrete context that we all understand.
I can easily make the argument
All immoral conduct does not require government intervention.
All conduct that offends someone is not immoral.
That all contexts are not identical. Conduct that is not moral in one may be in another.
That when we feel someone else’s conduct is immoral – we may well be wrong.
But for that I would just ignore this.
I think the arguments being made on this – whether yours or anyone elses are wrong – frankly quite obviously wrong, and they are harmful.
That if you were smart you would not want to get your way.
If you silence someone whether by inspiring conformity or by forcing it – you harm yourself,
Worse still you start down the slippery slope.
I am not worried that Rick might “censor me” – he may. The internet is huge, I will find somewhere else. I have contemplated change for some time and if certain things were easier or I was inspired I would have already done something.
But should not silence me one way or the other it is not likely long before you start going after each other. Nature abhors a vaccuum.
Whatever you think my sins, it is quite easy to find sins to condemn in others here.
Again read “on Liberty”
I provided a link to the PDF.
I do nto think there is an argument I have made on this issue that Mill has not made better there.
My responses are self evidently not “ridiculous” they are just not what you wanted to hear.
“In the current world of lousy choices, I will select shorter obnoxious comments over meaningful, intellectual, philosophical meanderings when they are in a s—– tide.
Life is too short to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find the golden words in a labyrinthian haystack that will win the discussion and vanquish all opponents. Ha.”
Have you been deprived of that choice ?
You are free to read whatever posts you wish.
You are not free to dictate what others post.
If I were going to censor at all – which I would not.
My priority would be posts that are insults rather than arguments.
Long bad arguments are of more value to me, that high quality obnoxious insults.
More “fake news”
CNN is walking back its claims that Sessions misrepresented his contacts with Russian in his security clearance disclosures.
Sessions claimed that the FBI directed him not to list contacts with foreign officials that were part of his activities as a Senator.
CNN said that was false.
The FBI actually emailed Sessessions and instructed him not to list contacts as a senator.
OOPS.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/11/cnn-walks-back-jeff-sessions-russia-bombshell/?utm_source=site-share
Who presents more ‘fake’ news daily, CNN or #PresidentPooPoo ?
Who CORRECTS those statements more frequently?
Who is MUCH MORE LIKELY to intentionally deceive?
The MSM or the GOP and the DNC?
Did you ever work for a news organization?
Or are you just spinning your wheels?
“Who presents more ‘fake’ news daily, CNN or #PresidentPooPoo ?
Who CORRECTS those statements more frequently?
Who is MUCH MORE LIKELY to intentionally deceive?
The MSM or the GOP and the DNC?
Did you ever work for a news organization?
Or are you just spinning your wheels?”
Politicians lie – we expect that.
We also expect the media to get things right.
Today I think that Trumps’ tweets may be more reliable than the Media.
On issue after issue – the media has told us – see stupid inaccurate false Trump tweet,
And you have parroted them, and a few minutes, days, sometimes Month’s later turns out Trump was right.
Always ? Probably not,
But the media has an actual duty not to be wrong about any of this – almost ever.
This is not supposed to be a war. This is not supposed to be contest of who is more accurate.
The media is supposed to be accurate PERIOD.
The media is supposed to be non-partisan PERIOD.
That is what we expect.
They have failed.
I expect the GOP and DNC and Trump to spin the truth.
I expect the media to catch them.
When the media “catches Trump”, and is wrong alot of the time, it is no longer doing its job, it is no longer credible, it is partisan.
That is fine, but it alters the trust I give it.
Trump deliberately went after the media, after the election.
Like it or not – that is within his rights.
Trump can declare war on the media. The media CAN NOT declare war on Trump.
When they do, they prove the basis for his attacking in the first place.
Increasingly the media is barely distinguishable from the DNC or GOP depending on the network.
I can live in that world, in fact I revel in that.
The more voices the better
I prefer the open volatile world of the internet and media today with 10,000,000 voices to
three canned voices spouting the same moderate left pablum day after day with no diversity, no real criticism.
But that is a messy world, it is a world where we must learn critical thinking – something that has atrophied in most of us.
Is it a requirement that I have worked for years tapping rubber trees before I am qualified to express an oppinion on the tires that I buy ?
This hOldie But Goodie dedicated to Judge Moore:
Hummm…
Aparently the problems at NBC go beyond Lauer.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/11/nbc-news-execs-roasted-for-refusal-to-launch-independent-investigation-following-matt-lauer-sex-scandal.html
And more misconduct elsewhere.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-new-yorker-severs-ties-with-star-reporter-ryan-lizza
Not endorsing this, just noting reality.
BTW Jay, you use the term ‘rationalizing” alot – this is rationalizing.
It is something quite different from real logical argument.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/10/frank_luntz_shocked_when_focus_group_of_roy_moore_voters_doesnt_believe_accusations.html
And interesting observations on Franken by Gingrich.
I disagree, but the observations are still interesting.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/10/newt_gingrich_social_pressure_of_the_left_drove_out_franken_hysteria.html
I’m putting some money into PervCoin (copyright pending). I think it might take off, and I am too late for BitCoin.
How will PervCoin work? Every time someone is caught groping or worse they must pay fines online in PervCoin? The time to get in on that is NOW!
Pat, it is bigger than that. Once you sign on and make a purchase, you can select from a series of check off boxes trying to predict the next Perv’s occupation or trade. This morning, I checked off chef, and a little latter Mario Batali emerged in the news. It doubled my PervCoin value. There are extra bonus boxes to check for political affiliation, time range of occurrence, marital status, number of me-tos, etc. that can balloon the value. Hitting any of those gets you some type of multiple of your coin’s value.
Please do not talk about Bit Coin.
I have known it was going to do this for years.
I could have bought lots, way back when it was dirt cheap.
I seriously thought about getting in in January when it was $100.
I could easily have bought $500.
I have a friend whose son I menotored who actually made 28,000 in bitcount arbitrage,
That was 28.000 in May of 2016.
I think it was valued at about 600 then.
As to whether it is too late.
Absolutely not!
MacAffee predicted 10.000 by the end of 2017, 50,000 by the end of 2018, and 500.000 by the end of 2020. Thus far he is UNDER.
But you can decide that John MacAffee is a libertarain fruitcake – which he is.
But Christine LeGrande of the IMF seems to be making very similar predications.
There are 5 issues with BitCoin:
1). The exchanges sometimes get hacked. When that occurs some or all people on those exchanges loose some or all of their holdings. There is no equivalent to FDIC.
But you do not have to use exchanges, you can keep you bitcoin on your computer, on a thumb drive you can even print them to paper,.
But the exchanges are very very convenient. If you have BitCoin in an exchange you can use it exactly like a bank account, you can transfer bitcoin to or from anywhere in the world in seconds, and your can take it to/from a bank account.
2). Volatility. Get over it. So long as you are in for the long run it will not matter.
I expect there will be several bitcoin crashes a year. Pay no attention.
They will get rarer over time.
3). The algorithm’s get cracked. That is a diminishing risk with time. It is now highly unlikely.
Frankly if it were possible it is likely the government already would have done it.
BitCoin is an existential threat to government money. Regardless, a mathmatical failure in bitcoin drives its value to zero instantly and there will be no recovery.
At the same time SOME Crypto Curency is going to cominate the world in the future.
4). There will be a quantum leap in mathematics that makes Bitcoin crackable.
This is inevitable. We have been waiting for Quantum computing for decades, we are still very far out. But it will happen. When it does BitCoin will likely fail. But so will myriads of other things – like absolutely all encryption in existance. The damage to governments will dwarf anything that happens to bitcoin.
In rality this is unlikely to be important. It is unlikely this will happen suddenly, we will know it is coming and a replacement for Bitcoin will appear and everyone will move to it without loss.
5). Governments will outlaw it.
The answer to that is that it is too late. Bitcoins success has actually been driven by the failure of governments.
I saw a graph of something else that went from 100 in Jan 2017, to 17000 recently – the price of a bagel in Venezuela.
Inflation in Venezuela is so high that stores are switching to BTC.
There are other places this will occur, and it will occur throught the world – working up from the bottom. I expect that soon we may well see small governments switch to BTC as their currency.
Maintaining a national currency is expensive – hence the Euro. But giving control – as in the Euro and the Dollar to another government is very dangerous. It allows that government to favor itself.
With BTC the playing field is level. You are isolated from the games central banks play.
BTC’s market capitalization right now is just under $300B.
That make it more valuable than ExxonMoble and just less than Facebook.
If it were a corporation it is the 6th most valuable in the world.
We are well past the last chance for a government to attempt to destroy it.
What do you think would happen if Donald Trump announced tomorow that he was liquidating Facebook ?
We now have BTC futures trading. That means very big money and reputable players are entering the market. That also will help stabalize the prices – futures markets shift the volatility.
Anyway BTS is no longer stopable by Government.
The US government has done US citizens a vast diservice by making BitCoin difficult to deal with in the US, and I expect they will continue to be hostile to it,
You can pretty much figure BTC is going to build from the bottom up – that it is going to succeed the most and fastest at the bottom of the world and bludgeon its way slowly into ever larger countries. The US to our detriment will likely be close to last.
Though there are competing political problems there – the US is entrepeneurial and technological, but BTC is not only an existential threat to government money, it is an existential threat to banks.
Which brings me to the last issue – the big PRO.
BTC solves a financial problem that we have never been able to solve before. The ability to clear a financial transaction from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world nearly instantly between parties that do not know each other, do not trust each other, and to do so WITHOUT credit.
Some of you likely think we can already do that – that would be false.
Credit cards, debit cards, PayPal …. Do not work that way.
Every single one of those and every other means of handling this requires CREDIT.
Sometimes for months, sometimes for hours, but there is always a third party intermediary guaranteeing payment – even when you buy goods at a grocerty store. your money does not go directly to the grocer.
This may sound small, but there are two issues:
It ties up an enormous amount of credit – and Credit is a limited resource.
When you expend it artificially – you get the housing bubble and bust.
BTC threatens to free up a gargantuan amount of credit.
Think of that a different way. Because we can clear transactions instantly the credit needed to guarantee those transactions can be used to fund investment elsewhere.
Growth will increase, Standard of living will increase.
Next that credit that is now being used has a cost – the people providing it get paid to do so.
So BTC REDUCES the cost of financial transactions – RADICALLY.
AGAIN, standard of living rises when more value is produced with less human effort.
As BTC replaces other forms of clearance, we are delivering the same value at lower cost.
That means ALL OF US are better off.
Further that freed credit move elsewhere multiplying the benefit.
The formula for increasing standard of living should be drilled into your head.
Everything that politicians wish to do should be evaluated on that basis.
As an example the Corporate tax cuts, on the one hand might reduce government revenues.
But they will increase the money available for investment.
The middle class tax cuts will not work as well – because those cuts will be spent not invested, and the benefit is barely distinguishable from government spending.
Any government proposal that delivers more value for less cost – is good.
But you have to look at the ENTIRE effects. Not just the direct effects.
The left constantly represents government spending as investment.
When it is spending, not investment.
And when it ALWAYS comes at the expense of actual investment.
Taxes reduce investment.
Before people start rushing out to invest in BTC.
Remember it is VOLATILE. I think the odds of BTC dropping below 10.000 in the next year are about 50/50.
I also think it will likely end 2018 at 50K
But even if it does not there is very very good reason to beleive it will increase in value over the long run ahead of most other major investments.
Why Mueller is unlikely to pursue obstruction and if he does, why he will fail
https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-a-president-obstruct-justice-1512938781?shareToken=st43b2cfc7e8824c63924afbbf9be20a7e&reflink=article_email_share
McCarthy making a permutation of my “this is imposible” argument.
McCarthy essentially makes multiple parallel arguments that you can not and likely never will be able to prove in court that Russia Hacked the DNC,
One argument that I thought was compelling that I have never heard before, is that you are never going to get into court with the argument that the DNC claims that the DNC was hacked by Russia – and ultimately that is all you have. You are especially not going to get their when the end target is Republican Trump.
You essentially are trying to get the courts to decide “republicans bad, democrats good” on the say of democrats.
McCarthy concludes – multiple ways you can not prove cyber espionage beyond a reasonable doubt. Actually you can not prove it to a preponderance of the evidence.
And if you can not get Russia you will never get Trump for colluding with Russia to do something you can not prove happened.
My this is impossible argument is somewhat different.
I will concede that if you ever prove who hacked the DNC – and you connect them apriori with Trump and demostrate Trump knew about or worse helped.
Trump is toast. But I think the odds of that are zero.
I am more focused on the social media nonsense.
If hypothetically Russia pushed Bazzillions of Facebook, …. adds that were overtly protrump.
If Trump encouraged Putin to do so.
You still do not have what you need.
Actual voters are not going to go “Oh, no – the russians deceived me”
The only people who are ever going to beleive that Trump voters were fooled by Russians are people who did not vote for Trump.
You might convince some of them that Russia did “bad things”.
You might convince them that Trump was somehow part of “bad things”.
But you will never be able to get specific.
Because the evidence is voters that changed their vote as a result of Russian influence.
And everyone who beleives they exist – believes they are “the other guy” .
You are hunting for Keyser Söze.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454515/russian-cyberespionage-does-mueller-have-proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt
Good commenters don’t need rules to tell them how to act.
Bad commenters don’t care about following rules.
And the worst commenters find a way to be the ones writing the rules.
We do not need rules to control the use of an unlimited resource.
We all have a voice in what this blog is about.
We make that choice in the topics we choose when we post.
That choices is ratified by others when they respond.
If you do not wish to discuss the topics I post – don’t.
TNM is not becoming the “Dave blog” as a consequence of my posts.
That is occuring because of YOUR choices.
It is not my posts on various topics that convert this blog into a forum about me.
It is posts like yours.
If you are not interested in debating “dave” – then don’t.
If you choose to post “all about dave” then you should not be surprised that TNM becomes “the dave blog”.
Actual issues – Dave
Your choice.
Wow, you wrote that so succinctly dduck12. How do you do that?
Mike Hatcher – FYI if I ever get around to resetting my lost password, maybe I’ll be able to post other than “Anonymously”. The thing is, we all want attention, we all want to be read. Otherwise we could easily write things in places that would not be read by others. There is nothing wrong with that. When we understand what we want from each other, then it is up to each of us to choose to give what the other person wants or to not give them what they want.
Mike;
As noted to dduck12.
You do not need rules for allocating an unlimited resource.
You can not control my or anyone else’s posts.
But you can control your own.
Is what you want to discuss “dave” ?
Or is it issues of importance to you ?
I am not making TNM the “Dave Blog” by posting about issues that interest me.
It is becoming the “Dave Blog” because others are choosing to post about “Dave” rather than issues.
Many factors are driving this – a major one is the heavy use of ad hominem.
When you attack a person rather than their argument you shift the discussion from the issue being debated to the person of the debaters themselves.
That is litterally what ad hominem means – argument to the person.
Most ad hominem is insult. But any effort to shift the argument from the issue to the person is ad hominem whether it is an insult or not.
While I may be less than perfect, I do not think anyone here has worked harder to move arguments away from posters and back to issues.
I have countered personal criticism’s – by trying to turn them back into arguments about issues.
But that is failing for two reasons:
Ad Hominem is extremely seductive. There is some human compulsion to control others.
Apparently many posters would rather debate me than issues.
Regardless, this is a choice, it is not my choice.
If TNM becomes “the Dave Blog” it will be because posters here chose that.
Your remark is a non-sequitur
you can not concurrently have rules and not have rules.
To the extent there are any rules – Rick defines them.
If I “made the rules”.
I would be inclined to recommend the rules of logic.
There is no logical rule about brevity – I believe the proof of the existence of zero runs several hundred pages.
There is no logical rule about the number or frequency of posts.
But there are rules barring the use of fallacy – such as ad hominem.
I have made my distaste for fallacy abundantly clear.
While that may not be a shared preference here, it is an actual rule of logic and debate – I am far from alone in that value. It is not merely a preference but a rigid rule in some venues.
But at TNM I have no ability nor right to require that of anyone else.
That is reciprocal.
Regardless, do you want to discuss “dave”.
Do you want to discuss “the rules”
or do you want to discuss actual issues.
I am interested in the later.
Extra!Extra!
Deck the Halls With Boughs Of Trumpsters…
https://twitter.com/belairviv/status/940579227065356289
Not posting about Trumpocolypse ?
Shrinking institutions to fit little hands
It’s a great point Mike. Yes, the supply of dhlii comments far exceeds the demand. Their value is in the toilet. But he will come back with the claim that he only writes for himself. Like Trump, he is completely self absorbed. It’s a weird thing but some people are actually attracted to absolutely self involved personalities. Because tv trained them that way.
It is not my posts on various topics that convert this blog into a forum about me.
It is posts like yours.
If you are not interested in debating “dave” – then don’t.
If you choose to post “all about dave” then you should not be surprised that TNM becomes “the dave blog”.
Actual issues – Dave
Your choice.
This i disturbing in ways that are not covered.
Neither DOJ nor the federal government can waive the conflict of another party.
If Mueller worked for a firm that had Kushner and/or Manafort as Client’s he may not ethically work on any case that they have an interest it.
The waiver would have to come from Kushner and Manafort.
It MIGHT be possible – if Mueller himself never worked on or had access to Kushner or Manafort information that a court might find no conflict.
But the legal presumption is there is a conflict and you need a waiver from the party with the conflict.
This appears to be DOJ.Mueller making the law up as they go.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/12/justice-mueller-ethics-waiver-russia-291707?lo=ap_f1
Here is a major Intelligence figure coming out and stating that the Intelligence community screwed up. That they allowed themselves to become politicized and that in doing so they alienated the president at the expense of the nation.
This is important it it goes beyond intelligence.
It is the obligation of the various departments of the federal govenrment to serve the president – not the other way arround – to do so they must not only do their job well – but they must have his trust.
When important people in those in those agencies are actively and often publicly speaking out against one candidate, or the president, they undermine the that trust.
If you work in the executive branch of the federal govenrment you work for the president.
It is your job to earn his trust – not the other way arround.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-top-intel-official-rethinks-maybe-we-shouldnt-have-attacked-a-new-president/article/2643208
“If you work in the executive branch of the federal govenrment you work for the president.
It is your job to earn his trust – not the other way arround.”
Bullshit. You work for the citizens of the nation.
When you have a lying disease like tTRUMP as president, patriotic Americans everywhere RESIST his destructive machinations.
You have ZERO common sense.
“Bullshit. You work for the citizens of the nation.”
Bzzt, wrong.
Read the constitution. All powers of the executive are vested by the constitution in the president.
If you work for the executive you constitutionally work for the president and at his pleasure.
You do not work for the citizens of the United States.
The president works for Citizens, Congressmen work for citizens.
Patriotic citizens are perfectly free to resist any president they choose.
They are not however free to resist and work for the president concurrently.
If you can not follow the direction of the president – for whatever reasons you might have,
then you must resign.
Opposing the actions of the president is a constitutional right.
But A federal job is not a right.
If you wish to #resist – you do so OUTSIDE of government.
This is true regardless of who is president.
Flynn was legitimately fired by Obama over a policy difference that Flynn was right about.
This is primarily an issue of law and constitution
However “common sense” dictates that a job is not a right.
Justice SotoMayor, the Washington Post, and Ilya Somin on “the rule of law”
We are already a lawless society – we have too many laws, Government would go bankrupt if it tried to enforce them all on all people.
That inherently means we have the rule of Man, not the rule of law.
That government can choose ot go after anyone – and be certain that at some time that person violated the law.
This is what is wrong with the Mueller Probe – but it is much worse than that.
The argument that if you have nothing to hide you should not fear investigation has always been crap. But it is far more so when it is certain before the police knock on your door that you have committed crimes you do not know about.
When I complain that Flynn has plead to something that he either did not do or that was an inconsequential infraction, and that Clinton and her staff did exactly the same or worse without consequence, the issue is not Clinton vs. Trump.
The issue is that the FBI/DOJ have the power to pick and choose who they will convict – not on the basis of what they done – but on the basis of who they favor or disfavor.
The rule of law means the most repugnant of us has the same rights, and the same treatment by government as the most sainted.
We are free as individuals to loath Trump as Jay does and to demand the full force of government to be targetted at him.
The rule of law requires that govenrment ignore Jay, and that it seek and prosecute alleged crimes with the same vigor regardless of who the alleged perpetrator is.
It is the sign of the strength of our system that we can investigate our president.
It is a sign of serious weakness that the vigor in which prosecutions are conducted varies with the politics or the target and the politics of the investigator.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/12/11/justice-sotomayor-unintentionally-highlights-the-perils-of-having-too-many-laws/?utm_term=.5575d419cda5
I think this is a really excellent article.
If you did not want the Tea Party – you should have elected McCain.
If you did not want Trump – you should have elected Romney.
The left keeps pretending that it can just push forward on whatever it wishes – if it can get (or pretend to get) the support of the majority – for a moment.
Failing to realize that the opposition for each issue is not the same, that the narrow success of the left is building a growing opposition sharing only anger with the left.
It is irrelevant whether you like or agree with that – it is what happened.
The left and the media created Trump.
You should be thankful that Clinton lost. What would have come after Trump would have been even worse.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/20/donald-trump-political-establishment-elites-tea-party-bourgeois-working-class-column/82047484/
This is your President, those who claim he should be allowed to remain in office, a pig headed moron who continues to demean the office and the nation.
disgusting behavior from a disgusting man, and this is what you will have staring you in the face EVERY DAY #PresidentPooPoo remains in office.
You can see anything in a Rorschach inkblot tweet. I hope the term “see anything” isn’t too vulgar and offensive to everyone.
Mike Hatcher –
You all need to stop paying me so much attention, I might start posting all the time.
“You all need to stop paying me so much attention, I might start posting all the time.”
I would welcome that. Whether I agree with you or not,
your posts are reasoned and shy of invective.
Trump is the duly elected president, he is “our president” just as Obama was.
I did not vote for either. I am not responsible for either.
But I still hoped for the best of both.
Trump remains in office – because of the constitution – to the extent anyone “allows it” it is because we have not changed the constitution.
With respect to Trump’s tweet – what is “disgusting” about it ?
You can debate whether it is factually correct – it appears to be.
It is unflattering and hyperbolic. It is unpresidential.
But so is “clinging to their guns and bibles” and “bring a gun to a knife fight”.
This Tweet provoked a storm on Twitter – Sen Warren came to Gillibrand’s defense, in a tweet that others noted unintentiallyally calls Gillibrand a whore.
Trump is incredibly good at provoking stupidity from his enemies.
That would pretty much be the definition of “not a moron”.
Regardless Trump’s Tweet was a RESPONSE.
Contra the left, Trump does not initiate attacks.
But he punches back twice as hard.
That is fine with me. If you attack someone else – you should expect to get attacked back.
I have echoed exactly that here REPEATEDLY.
If you accuse someone of being a liar – it is CERTAIN that someone is a liar, but the presumption until you prove otherwise, is that it is you.
There is bizzare confusion here that because libertarians seek to minimize government and expand freedom, that the absent of government consequences, means ones actions have no consequences.
Gillibrand is free to criticise Trump. But she should expect a response.
I think I mostly agree with Gillibrand’s orriginal tweet. but toning down the hyperbolee I also agree with Trump’s response.
A good part of the reason you so frequently come to such idiotic conclusions is that you lack common sense, and an understanding of nuance. This is obvious in your misunderstanding of word usage.
To start, political cartoons are not meant to be haha funny. They are satiric statements, in comedic form, meant not to amuse with laughter, but to persuade you that a point of view or actions are worthy of criticism.
And that you don’t get the relevancy of describing tRUMPS tweet as ‘disgusting’ is further proof of your duncehood concerning usage. That’s why you don’t understand that the content of #PresidentPooPoo’s reply to Gillibrand is ‘disgusting’ coming from a president in that it shows a disgusting lack of dignity in context. That you lack the nuance to understand that reinforces my point, you’re nuances deaf DUMB and blind.
And Schlump is not OUR president; he’s THEIR president.
If I own stock in Apple and the Board Of Directors chooses a CEO, he’s not MY CEO – I didn’t chose him. He’s the BOD’s CEO.
A minority of Americans voted for tRUMP, and the Electorial College put him in Office. There is no absolute Constitutional requirement for them to do that. tRUMP is their President, not mine. He’s president on a technicality of Constitutional procedure. He lacks the honesty, veracity, restraint, probity, decency required to be respected as OUR president.
Constitutionally he is a poster boy for removal through Impeachment, 10 times worse than Nixon. But present day Republicans are 10 times more debauched morally – as their overall acquiesce to Moore’s candidacy has shown, as their refusal to hold Schlump to the same standards they’ve demanded of Democratic sexual miscreants has proved.
Only a nuance retard would suggest tRUMP’s response to Gillibrand was justified as you did. tRUMP is GUILTY of those groping charges, as anyone with sense understands. He admitted it on tape, then retracted that with lies, and continues to lie: – his assertion yesterday he never met any of those accusers, who are shown in photos with him proof. But you’re going to defend him none the less.
I find that DISGUSTING.
Look Jay, I think that that particular tweet of Trump was not disgusting, so we disagree, that’s fine, and while you like name calling so much, I can do that too… you, ..you, you homo sapien!
Mike Hatcher
Isn’t that homo sapient?
😎
It was totally not disgusting. But Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Trump “slut-shamed” Gillibrand. On this I have 2 observations:
1. Liz Warren likely does not understand the term “slut-shamed.” Either that, or she thinks that Gillibrand is slutty.
2. Trump has tweeted about a variety of male politicians, saying that they “would do anything” for this or that. Do those tweets have sexual overtones? I doubt it.
3. When did liberals become such puritans? Isn’t that sort of a contradiction?
That’s 3 ~ THREE observations!! :”>
Oops! Typo on my part Jay, yes, in my rage I meant to call you sapient but apparently I couldn’t type straight so I spelled it wrong. Well, I give you credit for your willingness to admit you are sapient.
Mike Hatcher
The GOP (Goofy Old Poopheads) once again undermining the legal system.
Of course they did. The ABA violated their own rules regarding rating’s.
Grasz received the “Order of the Coif” in Law School, he served on the Law review and fraduated Cum Laud. He was accepted to the Supreme Court Bar and has written briefs that were accepted for 9 Supreme Court cases, and has argued in front of the Supreme Court once.
The ABA rating was addressed by the Judiciary committee and it failed to hold up under scrutiny.
There is evidence that the rating was partisan. There is documentation that the ABA based its decision on legal positions that Grasz’s argued that are currently the law of the land.
Though it is often the case that a lawyer holds the views they advocate, it can not be presumed.
But worse still you can not find someone unqualified for a legal position that conforms with current law.
More succinctly the ABA proved their reviewer was unqualified.
And there was definite evidence of personal malice and that the Committee that made the decisions was provided inaccurate and incompletely information.
In otherwords the review process was corrupt and the left tried to game it and failed.
Regardless, Prima Fascia a Lawyer accepted to practice before the US Supreme court is actually Highly Qualified.
That is a non-trivial legal acheivement
Blah blah blah.
Grassley disagrees with your goofy assessment
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/364504-grassley-tells-trump-not-to-proceed-on-two-judicial-nominations
Is truth entirely alien to you ? You linked to a story completely unrelated to Grasz,
“Grassley told CNN that he urged Trump and the White House to rethink the nominations of Jeff Mateer and Brett Talley.”
Tally is young and has tried no cases. However he is a harvard law graduate and he has clerked for two federal judges – which is incredibly difficult to get.
My wife barely failed to secure a clerkship with a supreme court feeder judge – i.e. you clerk for them and then clerk for a justice on the supreme court the next year.
She did clerk for a federal judge and then for a commonwealth court judge.
The complaint about Tally is is ties to the NRA – again if the ABA is making contrary decisions based on legal views consistent with the state of the law – the problem is the ABA.
Opposition to Mateer seems to be based on some statements he made out of court on LGBTQ issues.
He is otherwise well qualified with 20 years of courtroom practice and is gurrently a TX assistant AG.
You can oppose any of these people for political reasons.
The Judiciary committee can reject them for political reasons.
But you are conflating politics with qualifications.
The ABA was asked to rank these people based on their legal qualifications not their political views.
The relevant question to all prospects regardless of their personal views on any issues is
As Gorsuch noted
“The great project of Justice’s Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators, to remind us that legislators may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it should be in the future. But that judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.”
Whatever the views of any of these candidates – or any from the left.
If they can not do that, they are unqualified.
In the past year we have found many sitting federal judges unable to do that.
These are self-evidently less quallified that Trump’s nominees.
Reqardless I want to note – I am not endorsing any of these candidates or their views.
I am merely arguing that based on the actual evidence presented – the ABA failed in rating them.
If you wish to reduce the rating of a lawyer based on their political views you need to demonstrate than they are intent on converting their political views into judicial action.
The ABA made no such claim.
.
In the real world, Grasz was confirmed 50-48 to the 8th Circuit. Don Willett advanced to final vote.
But, it’s ok Jay, looks like your leftist guy is going to win Alabama.
The ‘leftist’guy, Pricilla, is a moderate centrist compared to the ‘rightest’ guy who lost,
From what little I can tell – Jones is slightly to the right of the left most of my senators.
But for Alabama he is on the far left.
I am glad he won, but there would have been no contest if he was more in tune with Alabama.
Splash..
The cartoon is not funny – because it is true the GOP is throwing away its principles.
But I would ask why your criticism is nearly uniformly at the GOP.
Democrats have demonstrated they have no Principles.
Trump’s conduct is problematic – maybe slightly more egregious than Frankens, but overall comparable, Moore’s is worse.
But there is a parade of other democratic politicians whose conduct is worse even than Moore, and an even larger parade of democrats.
As was recently noted – no woman ever died in Roy Moore’s car.
Conyers appears to have threatened staffers with murder on several occasions.
Clinton was elected despite compelling allegations of rape and sexual assault.
Gillibrand who is now calling for Trump’s resignation, was pandering to and supportive of Bill Clinton. I am glad she has had a change of hart. I am glad that democrats atleast appear to be making weak attempts to get their house in order.
I am unhappy that Republicans are not doing the same.
But I am not stupid enough to think sexual misconduct is not atleast as serious a problem for the left as for Republicans.
“But I would ask why your criticism is nearly uniformly at the GOP.”
Because THEY’RE IN POWER, dummy.
If I’m in a bank being robbed by armed thieves, I’m not going to complain about armed thieves who held up the bank last year, Double Duh!
Moore was not “in power” when you were targeting him. He was aspiring to power.
Fortunately he is gone.
Franken was/is a senator – that is the 3rd most powerful elected position in the country.
Biden was the VP – where were you then. Clinton was President ?
You were after Trump before he was elected – he had no “power” then. You were atleast tepidly behind Hillary for eons, she has had actual power.
Regardless, at the moment no bank is being robbed.
In fact to some small extent robbery is being ended and the stolen loot being returned to its rightful owners.
At the moment the most pressing bank robbery – is the one that occured, not the mythical one that is not occuring.
Dhlii’s President:
“Given an open-ended choice to name the first word that comes to mind when they think of President Trump, more respondents say “idiot” than any other descriptors, according a survey released Tuesday.
The Quinnipiac University poll finds 53 voters polled think first of the word “idiot” when describing Trump, with another 44 voters saying “liar” and 36 voters responding “incompetent.”
Thirty-five voters say they think of the word “leader” when Trump is mentioned, and the same number say they think of the word “strong.”
Other words including “asshole,” “great” and “moron” were all given as responses by more than 19 people in the open-ended question.”
You are completely unable to make anything not about me.
Did not vote for the Trump – made that abundantly clear.
I oppose some of what he does and says,
But apparnetly anyone who does not beleive that we are in the midst of trumpocalypse is a “trumpanzee”.
I was unaware that Intelligence was determined by polls.
BTW trump’s approval is +5 on the economy
Polls show 53% of democrats (and 18% of republicans) believe that the russians actually hack US voting machines and changes Clinton votes to Trump.
BTW Wisconsin and Michigan apparently still use paper ballots.
A Typical Republican ignoramus from Alabama.
https://twitter.com/dkurtenbach/status/940708013266034688
Believe it or not John Stuart Mill addresses this in “On Liberty”.
There is no requirement to swear on any text. There is no requirement to swear before god.
Only an oath or affirmation is required.
The supposedly ignorant republican was asked a false and misleading question.
The oath does not require any text at all.
That is a choice of the person.
All federal employees take the same oath. They typically raise their right hand and swear – without any mention of god, or bibles or koran’s.
I would be a massive logic error to expect a non-christian to swear on a christian bible.
“The supposedly ignorant republican was asked a false and misleading question.”
Another contextual representation by you.
You’re pathetic.
John Quincy Adams took the oath of office on a book of constitutional law.
The presence of some religious book at an oath of office is an artifact of the wishes of the person taking the oath, it is not a requirement of law.
The question was was presented as if the oath required a religious text.
That is called a misleading question.
It would be misleading in any context.
Put more simply either the reporter asking the question is as stupid atleast as the person he was asking, or the question was deliberately framed to entrap.
Shorter – the reporter is either biased or stupid.
Either way REINFORCES the fake news meme.
If reporters are biased and playing entrapment games favoring one party – the news is not news, it is party propoganda.
If reporters are stupid and ask questions that are invalid on their face – the news is not news, it is garbage.
Back on topic:
Lying about not Pussy Grabbing, etc
What Trump said was:
“false accusations and fabricated stories of women who I don’t know and/or have never met.”
It was specific to allegations made by three specific women (not the ones pictured) yesterday.
Regardless, is trump being disingenuous ? Certainly.
Is he lying – probably, but not certainly.
Are you and the left playing atleast as nonsensical word games as he is ? Absolutely.
Once again you got it Wrongo!
Full tweet:
“Despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the Democrats have been unable to show any collusion with Russia – so now they are moving on to the false accusations and fabricated stories of women who I don’t know and/or have never met. FAKE NEWS!” Trump tweeted Tuesday.
What ‘three’ accusers? He made a blanket statement. You screwed up, again, misrepresenting the context.
The NEWS that day that Trump referred to was the 3 women at the capital that day claiming Trump harrassed them.
Calling a tweet a blanket statement does not make it one.
Are you saying that Trump’s statement covers all of eternity ?
Did he say “Every” ? Or “all” ?
Lack of specificity does not transform something into generality.
How’s this for specificity: one of the three women you refer to, in his wedding photo.
Two things we know for sure: #PresidentPooPoo is an inveterate Liar, you’re an inveterate nit picker.
If you are going to accuse someone else of lying – then you had damn well get the details right.
Yes, I am going to “nit pick” accusations of misconduct.
These are the 3 women who came forward and asked congress to investigate Trump
Jessica Leeds, Samantha Holvey and Rachel Cooks
You have not provided pictures of them with Trump.
But if you had – that would not be sufficient. You have TWO huge problems
Here is the Tweet.
Please note the “and/or”.
Maybe you can find evidence that he met them. but to begin to call this a lie, you have to alse prove he “knows” them. Trump has met myriads of people he does nto know.
For decades he has been photographed with people who wanted to be photographed with him.
Would you say that a photo of someone with Brad Pitt is proof of anything more than that he attended an event at which this other person was present ?
The last problem you have is none of this is in a court of law.
Most of us do not tear apart the relatively casual utterances of others with the precisions you are trying. to.
While that is done here fairly regularly the context and goals are different – or they are supposed to be.
You can tear apart and argument that way – but proving an argument is false does not prove someone lied. It just demonstrates they are wrong.
You rant about partisanship and about failure to conform to polite norms and about being rude.
It is partisan, it is failure to conform to norms and it is rude to accuse someone of being a liar, when at worst they are merely wrong.
Doing so makes you at best – no better than Trump, and probably worse.
Finally, I do not think there are many people who do not beleive that Trump has actually engaged in the conduct he described on the access hollywood tape. Though I do beleive the tape is exagerated bragging. Still it is at best an exageration of what is still bad conduct.
I am personally not particularly interested in the accusations that are basically “Trump was a judge and producer of beauty contests, and damn it he scrutinized contestants for beauty”
I do not care if you think he leered at you at a pagent.
Beyond that I beleive the accusations from the women who have actually come forward on their own and put their names to accusations.
But believing them doesn’t make Trump’s Tweets into lies.
Yes he is playing word games – but so are you and so is the press.
Many celebrities pose for photos with people that they don’t know.
Wedding guests often bring a “plus one” to the event, and that person ends up in pictures with the wedding couple, although s/he is not known to the couple, other than a brief intro.
Skilled photoshoppers can place anyone in almost any photo.
All of that said, Trump may be lying, he may be mis-remembering, or he may be telling the truth.
Your problem is that your bias is so deep that you are apparently unable to rationally evaluate a claim by either side, if it involves Trump. No defamatory story about him is too extreme, and no exculpatory evidence is strong enough. When presented with a statement of fact (e.g. your belief that Judge Grasz would not be confirmed, even when he had ALREADY been confirmed) you simply ignore that fact.
Perhaps Pat is on to something (he often is), and you have a deep-seated, intense love for Trump 💘, which you have been desperately trying to exorcise!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200804/hating-the-one-you-love-i-hate-you-i-love-you
Priscilla;
I am confused by your response.
The reply claims to be to me – dhlii
but my read is that you are responding to Jay.
“Perhaps Pat is on to something (he often is), and you have a deep-seated, intense love for Trump 💘, which you have been desperately trying to exorcise!”
Ya got me.
That’s it!
Thwarted Love invites revenge!
I thought when he groped me I was the only one!
Now I won’t rest until his perfidy is rewarded with ignominious removal from orifice. … Er, Office.
It’s ok, Jay. Many people have become unhinged due to unrequited love.
My advice? Get professional help, and move on with your life. 😘
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/364580-gop-strategist-trump-tweet-at-gillibrand-an-assault-on-the
Extra! Extra! Never Trumper still doesn’t like Trump!!!
Why do you think this is news!
Not news, reaffirmation.
It appears that Jones has won the Alabama Senate Race by a very near margin.
I was wrong, and I am very glad – hopefully I will not wake up tomorrow and find this has flipped again.
While this will make it more difficult for Republicans to govern until whatever the 2018 election results are,
I think it sends a strong message that sexual misconduct by politicians will not be tolerated.
Further it mostly allows both parties to put forth candidates for 2018 who are of good character.
We can fight over whether Trump should resign – though the fight is pointless, this is not making him resign. But there should be no argument that congressmen and senators that can not keep their hands to themselves should be gone.
“We can fight over whether Trump should resign – though the fight is pointless, this is not making him resign. But there should be no argument that congressmen and senators that can not keep their hands to themselves should be gone.”
Huh?
Congressmen and Senators should be gone but not the President for groping?
Really?
Why?
Does reading comprehension and logic elude you ?
How is not engaging in fruitless discussion of something that is unlikely to impossible the same as taking a specific position ?
Is it possible for you to be happy that we appear to have gotten a good outcome in Alabama ?
Or were you secretly hoping that Moore would win because you actually want conflict ?
This is pretty simple. Moore lost, the voters got the last word. We do not have to even contemplate the mess of seating him or not seating him or fighting over seating him – I can not think of a good scenario.
I am happy – are you happy ?
With respect to Trump – these allegations were all out there when he was elected – and he won.
As were all Clintons mess.
What really would have made me happy is if voters did not have to choose either of them.
But that is not what happened and voters made their own choice as to which was the lessor of two evils. You still have not grasped that. As revolting as Trump was, voters either wanted him more or loathed him less. Though clearly it was a close call.
Republicans should be embarrassed that Trump is president.
Democrats should be embarrassed that Clinton was their candidate.
There is plenty of embarrassement to go arround – and none of it is mine.
I would note myriads of differences between Congressmen and the president.
The president is answerable only to congress. The only option is to impeach of wait until the next election.
Congressmen are answerable to their chamber, and to the law, as well as the people.
Some (not all) of what has been alleged is criminal.
Franken choose to resign. I respect him somewhat moore for making that choice.
It is what he should do. It is not what he had to do.
From what I understand of the Conyers allegations – he should hope to avoid jail.
If there are others – lets clean house.
Or are you so vested in the Trumpocalypse that nothing else matters to you but Trump ?
Mike Hatcher,
I want to respond to your restaurant scenario. Let’s see if I understand your scenario and the question you are asking. I believe two people are sitting together trying to eat their meal and a third uninvited person/stranger is accosting them verbally with somewhat disgusting remarks. Is your question at what point does the stranger’s behavior justify force from police/government?
You also stipulate that the two people dining are not the types to take matters into their own hands.
Do I understand the situation and your question somewhat accurately?
Government may step in if:
Force or Fraud are initiated
Government – may become involved – this is different from policing – if:
a contract is violated.
Actual harm is inflicted by one party on the other.
In the last two instances government does not act with police power – finding mis conduct and punishing it, but purely in a adjudicative role, resolving disputes and enforcing the resolution.
The Owner may step in:
For any reason they damn well please favoring whatever party they choose.
The owner is free to do anything EXCEPT:
initiate force or fraud
breach a contract
cause actual harm to another
The owner is free to call the police in to remove a tresspasser.
That is a person whose permission to be on the property of another has been revoked.
The above applies to all similar situations that are not on actual public property.
Sorry forgot.
The diner’s are free to:
ask the intruding party to leave them alone.
ask the owner to remove the intruding party
leave.
They probably have a breach of contract claim against the owner if the owner can not deliver the dining experince that was promised.
People as a whole are free to:
express in any non-violent way they choose their displeasure with the conduct of any actors – the owner, the intruding diner, the interrupted diner’s.
I have proscribed what the rights and/or powers of most actors are with respect to this scenario.
That does not define the outcome. And that is what so much of us hate.
We are not interested in rights – not even our own.
We want hard rules where that is imposible that will assure the specific outcome we wish for. We do nto understand that all parties do not wish for the same outcome, nor that there may not be a correct outcome.
Pat, yep, you got my scenario, I used terms like spit and stuff to keep from writing too salaciously, as far fetched as that may be, more believable would be a guy hitting on a couple of girls, but I wanted to take away the “illegal solicitation” already in existence, and ask, what if it was just other obnoxious offers, spitting in the salad, ect.
Mike Hatcher
The specific conduct matters.
Force or the threat of force bring government into the issue.
Overall even with minor threats of force – I would prefer to keep govenrment out.
But spitting in someone else’s food, is minimally a small theft.
Hitting on another persons girlfriend would not be a crime.
Offering them money for anything – including sex should not be, but unfortunately is.
Clinton Campaign new about Weinstein.
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/12/06/lena-dunham-and-tina-brown-warned-clinton-campaign-weinstein/108359378/
Fusion GPS – a Clinton Campaign Consultant and Representative of Russia in the US
was responsible for many of the anti-trump “fake news” stories during the election,
including those linking Clinton pal and co pervert Epstein falsely with Trump.
As well as the fake story about the Trump Towers Server purportedly linked to a Russian Bank.
Just to be clear – while this is dirty, it is legal. The responsibilty to check sources rests with the media.
One of the problems with the media – as well as others here, is that hatred for Trump has so blinded them that they will beleive anything.
The fact that Trump is flawed does not automatically make every negative story about him true.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/10/glenn-simpsons-fusion-gps-ran-donald-trump-smear-c/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpFeVlUZzVaV0k0TWpSayIsInQiOiJmaVRVMVMxQUhVdFh0ZmJOalRlRzIrWkFyR2FuVG9RazBDRnZ1SWdod3I0TFVjc21sV1RmYXpFTlo1WWRPSE40Uk1GWUh4R1J2dFpZR
Dirty politics is legal, to a point anyway.
I do believe that what is currently going on in the news media is malpractice. There are those reporters that simply run with any negative story on Trump, without confirming it in any way.
But, CNN, and some others, have become malicious in a way that I suspect is intentional; that is, that they purposefully run with a story that they know is untrue, allow it to gain traction on social media, and to be re-reported by other outlets. Then, hours or days later, they issue a brief “correction,” knowing that the news cycle has moved on, and that their “mistake” won’t impact the overall negativity that it created.
It’s one thing for politicians to do this, another for journalists. News media organizations should police themselves, but they won’t, and censorship should NOT be an option. So, the result is that we have a good portion of the population that believes lies, another portion that don’t believe anything that the mainstream media report, and a final group that has tuned out completely.
I don’t know how a democracy can survive without a free and unbiased press.
“There are those reporters that simply run with any negative story on Trump, without confirming it in any way.”
Isn’t that what Fox did to Hillary, and still does. And how often do they run any negative news about tRUMP, no matter how verifiable?
Is CNN overreacting to tRUMP negativity? Of course they are, just as the MSM overacted to News about Germany and Japan during WWII. When the nation is under attack, the media responds accordingly. The German American Bund complained about unfair press coverage of Hitler then too. History proved them wrong, as it will your overreaction to the MSM coverage now.
I trust the market to self regulate the media. That does not mean things will be perfect.
But we do mostly know what we are getting and have multiple choices.
We will get unbiased – if we value unbiased enough the media must deliver unbiased.
We do not get unbiased – because that is not what most of us want.
Fox is what it is. because that is what its viewers want. CNN is what it is for the same reason.
Fox is a reflection of its viewers. CNN a reflection of its.
Fortunately I can not be tied to either. Regardless, what has become aparent is the FOX is overall less error prone and biased – not unbiased, just less frothingly biased.
With respect to Clinton – Sorry, the overwhelming majority of the stories were true.
Worse still as we learn now – there was much that DID NOT get out that should have.
If there was a problem with FOX/Clinton it would be they did not dig deep enough.
I doubt you are capable but I would suggest strongly comparing the Clinton messes with those of Trump.
The Trump nonsense is fact free. There are no facts we know about Trump outside the sexual harrassment that both hold up and are meaningfull.
With Clinton the facts support nearly every allegation.
We increasingly learn that not only has the FBI been “out to get” Trump and his surrogates, but that they were actively looking to protect Clinton.
Investigations are not perfect, nor are investigators. But when every single mistake or judgement falls in a single direction, we are no longer talking mistakes, or simple human imperfection, we are talking bias and “collusion”.
What is increasingly self evident is that the FBI and Clinton campaign Colluded to “get Trump”
What is increasingly self evident is that the administration actively sought to hide both its own and Clitnon’s misdeeds, to cover them up, to obstruct justice.
That is of far more concern to me than this fake Trump/Russia nonsense.
Unfair and untrue are not necessarily the same, Jay.
No doubt, Fox has a conservative bias, particularly in its night time line up of pro-Trump commentators like Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham.
But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about news stories, reported as FACT rather than OPINION. And how the stories are sourced and verified…and ultimately corrected or retracted.
In 8 years, how many negative stories about Obama were reported and turned out to be untrue? I’m not aware of any. In 1 year, multiple untrue stories have been reported about Trump, all of which were negative and unverified. Most times, the White House was not even contacted for comment before the stories aired.
I would assume that most journalists have a bias, because most all of us do.
My point about journalistic malpractice is that there are specific principles and methods that keep a news story from being reported in an untrue and unfactual manner. There is little question that those principles and methods have been abandoned by much of the news media, and that certain media outlets are no even attempting to cover the news in a factual and unbiased way.
It’s dangerous, and it’s getting worse. How can any voter even begin to try and make sense of what is going on, if there is no unbiased, non-political, free press?
Rose,
“.. a final group that has turned out..” There you go with those disgusting terms again, like “turned out”. Talking about people pressed into prostitution!
Things are getting so silly these days. I play cards on a website that allows me to chat with other players, but it will block me from saying something like: ” I can always try tomorrow.” Guess why it will not allow me to post that comment? Give up? Well it is because the last two letters of the word, can are the letters a and n, which immediately precede the first two letters, a and L of the word always. Thus the sequence of those 4 letters blocks the message from posting.
It seems there is always some elements within every political entity that will use false hysteria against their political opponents. I am particularly annoyed by people that rage, cuss, and express their extreme hatred of politicians they accuse of not being loving and compassionate. I mean, there they are foaming at the mouth and spewing their hate while condemning people for not caring for others.
Mike Hatcher
Whatever duty I owe to others – I OWE IT.
Not society – that is a concept.
Demanding that my represenative “care for others” is demanding that he steal to make me feel good.
I can only help others with what is mine. Giving someone else something that belongs to another is still theft.
Priscilla;
I have said this before, but I am happy with the media.
I greatly prefer open bias from numerous sources, to only 3 source with more carefully disguised bias that we had growing up.
The media is behaving unprofessionally – and they are being attacked for that.
Those who do not care continue to fawn over them. For most of us their credibility has been permanent damaged. I think that is good.
Trump had gone toe, to toe with them. While that has hurt him – it has hurt the media, and the left more. I am fine with that. Sometimes I even enjoy it.
I do not “suspect” the media of being malicious – they are fairly openly.
I am not sure I care if they are openly malicious.
While their bias harms them – it is their sloppy mistakes that do the most damage.
Trump can survive being called a liar – Jay does not seem to understand that.
Truth – the news, is supposed to be the product the media sells.
They have become an outlet for propganda.
We can survive fine with the press we have.
In interesting ways we are much more similar to 1776 than any time in the past.
We have myriads of sources, but we must weigh the credibility of each personally.
What I think we are seeing is the demise of the big media outlets.
Increasingly aggregators are becoming important. Whether Drudge or RCP,
You go somewhere that has currated thousands of sources for you and provided the most interesting ones of the moment.
While I do not think the major media are disappearing, I think they are of dimminishing consequence.
I am as an example more likely to watch a collection of youtubers with disparate viewpoints than Matt Lauer or Shaun Hannity.
Finally I would note this is all another argument for limited government.
Large collectivist government requires uniformity of oppinion.
One of the massive self contradictions of the left is that diversity requires freedom,
and freedom is inconsistent with big government.
All we are seeing happen is the lid being stripped off of the fact that we do not come close to agreeing on many things.
The ultimate result MUST be greater freedom and more limited government.
I do not need the nation to have some libertarain awakening to more strongly towards libertarianism.
I beleive I argued 16th century Germany before.
The western concept of religious Freedom did not come about because we suddenly woke up and realized the wonder and beauty of religious tolerance.
It arrose because after a century of germans killing each ofther over small religious differences, everyone thoroughly exhasted realized – they could nto win, but they could lose.
No one gave up their beleif that theirs was the one true faith that everyone should beleive.
They just gave up trying to impose it by force.
That is where I hope we are headed. We have a century of the politics of force and failure.
Disparate groups may never give up on their belief that they are right, the one true politics.
But they may give up trying to impose their view by force.
Very true.
However, the issue has never been Strzok’s texts. It is whether he used unverified opposition research from Fusion GPS to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, and whether Lisa Page, or anyone else in the DOJ’s office signed off on that.
The texts are part of a pattern.
People make errors in the real world, and they hold opinions.
When we place them into a position of authority and all or nearly all their errors or judgement calls lean in favor of their oppions that is the definition of bias.
Lots of people speak crudely about politics in private.
It is perfectly OK.
It is substantially less so when you are investigating the people you are showing favor or disfavor.
It is worse still when every judgement call that you had to make reflects that favor or disfavor.
The Tweets are not a problem because Strzok can not say those things
But because his prior and subsequent actions demonstrate that the tweets reflect more than views, they reflect a willingness to act. .
“Out of all the damning, politically charged anti-Trump text messages released, one text from Strzok to Page on August 15, 2016 raised the most suspicion. It referred to a conversation and a meeting that had just taken place in “Andy’s” (widely believed to be Deputy FBI Dir. Andrew McCabe’s) office.Strzok had texted this:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration today in Andy’s office [break] there’s no way he gets elected. I want to believe that. But I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. We have to do something about it.”
In another text, Page said:
“maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” Strzok replied: “I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.”
Sorry Jay – this is a problem. There is a world of difference between griping about Trump, and stating that you are going to put your political views into action using your position within the federal govenrment to do so.
Strzok is toast.
Worse, we need to know about the meeting with Andy (McCabe) as Rosenstein was also present and as Strzok’s texts are evidence of a possible conspiracy.
I am rescinding my remarks that it is not merely the Text’s, but the context the Text’s create for actions.
I have no idea which Text’s McCarthy read, but not only are some of these much worse than I expected, but they openly state that Page and Strzok intend to ACT to prevent Trump from becoming president, and the imply a conspiracy with McCabe and possibly Rosenstein.
These are not a “big nothing” they are a very big deal.. This would be very serious if they were merely anti-Trump pro Clinton, but they co beyond that.
If You had Trump texting that his campaign must do whatever it takes – use whatever power they have to defeat Clinton – including hack DNC emails or work with the Russians Trump would be impeached in a second, and rotting in jail already.
Some of the Strzok texts state that he will do whatever he can using his multiple roles as a government agent to prevent Trump from being elected.
That is an actual Crime. It is close to Treasonous. Other Strzok texts make it clear he not merely favors Clinton – he absolutely Loathes Trump, and that he loathes anyone who would vote for Trump and beleives that it is legitimate for him to use his role in the FBI to disenfranchise those voters. If possible.
Gowdy made a pretty damning comment to Rosenstein that demonstrates the conflicts of interest problem perfectly.
Almost none of the people prosecuting this case if instead they were in the jury pool would be capable of being included on the jury.
I would also ask those who think that some remark made by Trump or Trump Jr. or …. constitutes evidence of a crime – why do not more egregious remarks made by those investigating this case not also reflect crimes ?
If Trump asking Comey if he could leave Flynn alone is obstruction of justice, how is Strzok saying that he will act in the multiple roles he has within the FBI to prevent Trump from getting elected, not a far more egregious crime ?
To be more clear – when Strzok and FBI agent says he will act inside his role as an FBI agent that can only mean investigate and prosecute.
So in August of 2016 – very early in any investigation of Trump, Strzok is saying – I am going to use my powers as an FBI agent to investigate, and convict Trump to prevent him from getting elected president.
We still do not have any actual evidence or even a credible allegation of an actual crime.
Yet almost 18 months ago Strzok is telling his paramour, that if necescary he will get a conviction.
Too bad they were unsuccessful at preventing the Buffoon from getting elected:
Jay;
It is your refusal and that of much of the left to accept what is readily apparent is “objective reality” that poses the problem.
You cite the fact that some in “his administration” share you view – that is correct, what is becoming increasingly evident is that many in the prior and current administration had a vested interest in preventing Trump from getting elected, and after that occured in concealing their efforts to prevent that and more generally conceal their lies to congress and the american people from coming to light.
It is “objective reality” that the obama administration – and the very same people who are currently in DOJ FBI and the Mueller investigation were lying to congress about the U1 deal, concealing an investigation of Russian corruption of the US bussinesses involved in that deal and concealing the possible financial connections of that deal to Sec. Clinton, and the Clinton foundation.
It is “objective reality” that many of these same people were key to the Clinton email investigation, and that they were instrumental in deliberately botching that investigation.
Does anyone doubt that if the Clinton investigation was persued with the same vigor as the Mueller investigation that people would be facing jail right now for violating national security, lying both to the FBI, in sworn documents, and under oath, for destruction of evidence AFTER subpeona; were issued.
Are you completely daft to the fact that the very attorney who defended one of those involved in the destruction of evidence – something we absolutely KNOW occured, is part of muellers prosecution of Trump ?
It. is objective reality that we have been lied to by these same people and a few more with respect to “russian interferance” in the election. The Intelligence committee admits that it has no evidence beyond the cloudstrike report that the DNC was hacked by Russia.
We have had statements and testimony from Clapper, Brennan and others claiming that based on what they had seen cross their desks Russia interfered in our elections – yet Congress has been investigating this for a year, and none of this “evidence” that crossed their desk has materialized.
Every tiny tidbit we have with regard to Russia and the election was uncovered AFTER trump was elected, and not by the Intelligence community.
You trust an intelligence community that you beleive lied to us about 9/11 and about Sadam’s weapons of mass destruction. But we are supposed to beleive an IC report that:
The entire IC did NOT sign onto – only 4 agencies did,
and that those 4 did so through a separate committee that was created exolicitly to reach that conclusion at the direction of those agency heads and divorced from those in those agencies who would actually know anything.
In area after areas – some related to Trump and some not, the people and congress have been told many things by “the administration” that have either proven to be false, or after more than a year of investigation we are expected to take on faith because despite demands absolutely no evidence has been produced to support them.
The objective reality is that congress and the american people have been lied to, and kept in the dark by ranking carreer federal employees.
It is increasingly evident that the this whole “Trump/Russia” nonsense is a scheme concocted by these people to cover up their own past misconduct.
If the test is “objective reality” – you, the media, and the left fail.
Objective Fox News
Do not recall saying Fox (or any other media) is objective.
That does not alter the fact that Mueller’s investigation is clearly corrupt.
Still selling the fallacy that Truth is determined by who is speaking rather than the accuracy of what is said.
Sorry this is long.
Dave commented earlier concerning Jones victory “While this will make it more difficult for Republicans to govern until whatever the 2018 election results are,”
In my opinion the republicans have been unable to govern at all since they have control of both houses of congress and the presidency.
Why” (Not in any order, just thoughts)
1. The democrats are united or are afraid. Most democrats are of the liberal persuasion and all think alike. The moderates are afraid. I heard a reporter the other day that covers congress say that Shumer “is going to allow his conference to vote for some legislation if they think it will do some good for their state in the coming year”. So he is using intimidation and fear of losing vice chairs in committees to control the votes of moderate democrats this session. Is this democracy and best for the country by forcing resistance?
2. Republicans cover much more of the political spectrum. From Susan Collins to the Ted Cruz’s, the GOP is trying to feed the needs of a vastly more diverse group of senators, and add that to the much more conservative house, coming up with anything the representatives will accept is much more difficult. Basically almost impossible when Shumer will not allow the moderates to support GOP efforts. That ends up with much more right leaning legislation.
3. Republicans will hold the line on debt,until it is beneficial for the rich, and then all hell breaks loose. The current legislation to reform taxes, being sold as a “middle class tax cut” is nothing but more welfare for the rich and most likely will cost middle class tax payers more. And at the same time, it is adding 1.5 trillion to the debt and that does not take into account any increased deficits due to demographics, entitlements and other out of control government spending. Then wait until next year with infrastructure legislation to see real spending!
4. Although there are some here that believe everything that is taking place in legislation is due to Trump, I believe it is due to the lack of effective leadership at the top causing the lack of legislative action. We have seen since Obama that little got done when the two parties had to work together to pass anything. Obama very rarely met with anyone in congress and Trump has had few meetings where Shumer and Pelosi has been present. Reagan was the master at negotiating a deal with the opposite party and Clinton was not so bad himself. Both were very effective presidents economically speaking. Trump has no idea how to negotiate with the opposite party. His “art of the deal” is telling others what to do and if they don’t he tries to belittle them and make them look like “little” fools. Shumer and Pelosi ain’t biting. And when they do agree to meet, he make some asinine comment and they skip the meeting.
5. Since Obama, the sole purpose of the opposition party has been to make President_______ a one term president. Piss on the country, its all about party. The republicans are doing nothing to stabilize their middle class support. Even when they have something good, their message is so piss poor they don’t get the message out.
6. O’Donnell(Delaware), Angle (Nevada), Akin (Missouri), Moore (Alabama) the Republicans allow the far right fringe of the state parties to pick the worst candidates possible. This shows the moderate voters will not support the extreme candidates. The when McCain runs against the first black candidate after a horrendous economic downturn even Jesus most likely would have lost and the Blacks turn out in numbers for the first black president that runs for reelection, the republicans blame the losses on people not supporting more moderate candidates. The problem is the Republicans are looking for excuses and not solutions to their problems. Bad candidates in elections where they have at least a 50-50 chance of winning..
7.In a recent Pew research report, it reported that 44% of moderate registered voters either were inconsistent voters or rarely voted. One of the reasons stated for not voting was “it makes no difference”. When the republicans can’t get anything passed, cut the deficit and debt and show progress, then why should anyone vote for them or the democrats?
Maybe some decent, moderate candidates would begin to mobilize the 44% in the middle to vote so in the future the 60% in the middle would have representation and cause the defeat of those standing in the way of moderate sensible legislation good for the country at the expense of the rich special interest.
Nice one RonP.
“Republicans cover much more of the political spectrum. From Susan Collins to the Ted Cruz’s, the GOP is trying to feed the needs of a vastly more diverse group of senators, ”
The GOP has been squelching diversity in the party.
For years now, the GOP has been at war with itself, made more vicious when tRUMP entered the fray. Have you missed all the venom directed at RINOs? The calls to toss establishment (read moderate or centrist) Republicans out of the party? Who do you think Bannon and tRUMP have been casting more slurs at, Democrats or Republicans?
Where are moderate Republicans in the scenario for national reconciliation? The #Trumpanzee base won’t allow them a voice.
One reason there is a fight within a party is because the party is diverse and not lock-step. The Democrat party have a fight with DINOs as well, specifically the old line Clinton Democrats who are rather conservative on some issues are fighting with true Liberal- Bernie type supporters. Perhaps there is a little more unity at the moment with them out of power and wanting to get back in, also the fact that the Clinton machine itself is so damaged from the losses, it might not be much of a factor anymore. (My last statement about the political death of the Clintons is more conjecture on my part, like certain movies one sees, you thing the opponent is dead but they somehow keep coming back). But my only point being that internal party fights, be they big or small, wild or mild, do not indicate homogeny, I think the opposite is more accurate, it is evidence of diversity.
Mike Hatcher
Another reason there is a fight inter party is because one faction wants to obliterate the ideology of any but their own.
Extra! Extra! People want their POV to prevail !!
The DINO’s – the blue dog democrats are pretty close to extinct.
Bill Clinton was fiscally conservative, slightly socially liberal. Frankly he fairly strongly resembles Trump though with a smoother tongue.
The Clinton democrats were also nearly exterminated prior to 2016.
Hillary Clinton goes wherever the wind blows and in 2016 in the democratic party it blew hard left.
There are no “true liberals” in the democratic party. Actual liberalism has a different name today – libertarian – because the left has fouled the label “liberal” so badly even they do not want it.
The modern left calls itself progressive.
I am not sure what the difference between progressivism and socialism is – and neither do they.
The GOP is orders of magnitude more diverse than democrats and that is not likely changing soon.
A part of the mess at the moment is that the democratic party at this time is at most the left 1/4 of the nation. While they seek to appeal enough to the remainder they are still themselves far left – and drifting farther left. The big fight in the DNC is between the Bernista’s who see the election as proof they need to purify and go farther left and a more impotent group who think they need someone like Clinton without the baggage. That if they just ran someone less dirty they would have won.
Regardless the debate in the DNC is between really really left and just really left.
Within the GOP it is smeared all over.
I would also note that the republicans control far far far more states.
That REQUIRES them to be more diverse.
Wisconsin is not Alabama, is not texas, is not montana. But if you list every true blue state right now they are not that far apart. Democrats are very heavily concentrated in the cities.
They are pretty much clueless about the rest of the country – but fully prepared to impose their will by force on people they do not know and have no idea what they need to properly do their job.
Jay
Both parties have their own internal Civil wars.
The GOP has been in one for more than two decades – as the social conservatives waned creating a power vaccuum.
Regardless, the breadth of political spectrum covered by the GOP is far larger than democrats,
Democrats electoral losses have been because their political diversity is diminishing.
Why do we keep hearing this nonsense about national reconcilliation ?
Since some people are pervs and some are not should we split the differnce and decide that the optimum is “half perversion” ?
Do we reconcile alabama by saying Roy More gets a year, and Doug Jones gets a year ?
Some things are right and some are wrong.
Once upon a time the left understood rights and liberty, but those days are gone.
Regardless
People are free to choose who they marry.
They are free to choose who they bake cakes for.
Our positive responsibility to our fellow man is individual and it is immoral for government to impose positive duties of any kind on us, or perform them in our stead.
It is immoral when the right expands government, or takes from us to give to others – including cronies. It is moral when they reduce what they take.
It is immoral when the left expands government, or takes from us to give to others – including cronies.
Separately Rino’s can take care of themselves – they do not need your help.
Nor honestly does the left and the media.
There are 330M people in this country. In 2016 – a major election about 120M voted.
That is a bit more than 1/3.
If 44% of moderates vote, that is more than the norm.
With regard to the rest of your post – while I would greatly prefer that obstructed and stagnant government started at a far lower threshold than currently, that is still the objective.
“That government is best which governs least. ”
Thoreaux
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Adam Smith.
I want it to be as difficult as possible for government to increase its power.
To the extent our founders failed in that regard, they made the mistake of making it both very hard to grow government and very hard to shrink it once grown.
I am not sure that the GOP engaging in half assed improvement, is better than doing nothing.
I think I am net in favor of the latest tax bill, but it certainly could have been alot better.
Flatter, less deductions, actually kill the AMT, lower marginal taxes, lower corporate taxes still – the right rate is zero.
Dave, less government is my objective also. That is how “common sense” legislators govern. It is those on each end of the political spectrum that govern more (ie Obamacare , tax reform for the rich at the expense of the middle class and excessive spending). Had sensible legislation been enacted based on recommendations by Simpson/Bowles, we MAY have a very different legislative landscape, especially spending.
Ron,
In my perfect world cutting taxes for people like me would have he greatest ebnefits in every possible way.
I will admit that I appreciate the “middle class” tax cut the GOP passed.
But I live in the real world and the data is clear.
Different tax changes have different net effects
Overall the right tends to overstate the benefit of pure tax cuts, while the left is just cmpletely economically clueless.
The economic benefits of tax cuts alone are weak – because “the economy” is not stupid – it grasps that a tax cut without a spending cut is just a future tax increase in one form or another.
Either we will pay for it through inflation, through higher taxes later or through the negative economic burden of debt.
All that said we still have robust data on different kinds of tax changes.
The worst form of taxation is wealth taxes – taxes on what we already own. These are incredibly distortive and are almost always double – or worse taxation. These are one of the primary reasons that a persons home tends to be a poor investment. This would be property and estate taxes and the like.
Taxes on investment – that is corpoarate taxes, all business taxes, and upper margin taxes have by next highest negative economic impact. Every $1 of revenue raised by the govenrment in that way costs $2 in overall standard of living.
This is why those types of tax cuts often pay for themselves.
There are caveats that $1:$2 ration implies the effect is linear – that comes from Christine Romers data/analysis (among others) – but the effect is not linear.
There is fairly solid data that the revenue optimizing maximum “income” tax rate is about 33% rates above that actually decrease government revenue and are just incredibly stupid. It is my understanding that the new top incometax bracket is still above 35%, that means any reduction will have a positive effect on govenrment revenue.
At the other end of things reductions and increases in payroll taxes and tax rates below the top rate have negligable economic impact.
I wish the facts were otherwise – but they are not.
If the objective is a higher standard of living middle class tax cuts will likely lower standard of living. While cuts on investment – the rich, will raise standard of living for all of us.
But there is a second problem. If we want a functional government the cost of that government needs to be born relatively evenly by all of us. When government debates spending money it is incredibly politically important that EVERYONE understands that even if the benefits of that spending might fall on them, so will the cost.
The constitution originally fixed federal individual taxes at the same for each person.
Not the same rate, the same taxes – congress could tax $5/per person. It could not tax the wealthy more than the poor.
That is part of why prior to the 16th amendment taxing people or income was very rare.
Making sure that the cost of taxes falls on everyone highly disincentivizes spending.
Cutting spending is a big deal for you – and me. While the economic benfits of tax cuts are more nebulous those of spending reductions are even better known and understood.
For every 10% of GDP less that government spends, standard of living rises by and additional 1%./year. That sounds small but after about 15 years the compounding effect dwarfs the value of the entire social safetynet.
Anyway. I am not interest in government that is structured to make me “feel”
better – by taxing the other guy or chasing some nonsensical concept of “fairness”.
And I am only interested in “common sense” when the facts in the real world bear it out.
“common sense” is by definition what most people believe to be true, and there is alot of things that most people beleive that are quite false.
Dave, ” I will admit that I appreciate the “middle class” tax cut the GOP passed. ”
You must be in a different middle class than most of us or you have bought into the GOP’s cool-aide. What most get per month might give them enough to buy a 6 pack of Bud or Miller. I dont consider that a cut the GOP should be advertising as a great middle class tax cut.
It is corporate and high income tax reform. I have no problem with corporate rate decreases to stop companies from becoming EU based companies or foreign subsidiary income coming to the American based parent company at a rate net of the foreign tax paid at a new lower rate. I do have problems with the lies they are telling about this being “middle class cuts” and the 1.5 trillion in increased debt.
Ron;
A cut is a cut. A 6pack a month is still better than nothing.
Even NYT found that 90% of those earning less than 80K would get a tax cut.
I agree the GOP should not be advertising this as a great middle class tax cut.
They should not be cutting middle class taxes, they should be eliminating deductions and subsidies and lowering tax rates to offset the eliminated deductions and subsidies.
Which is actually close to what they are doing.
But the key economic benefit of the GOP plan is the very part that people are angry about.
As I have noted before “common sense” is common, but it is not sense.
The correct rate for all business taxes is ZERO.
As to the changes in the deficit – predicting the revenue effects of this is reading a ouija board.
There is no good economic model for the revenue effects of tax cuts.
What is known is that linear projections that do not account for changes in economic activity are wrong to the point of being useless and that is really all we have.
While I am skeptical of claims that this cut might pay for itself, I also think the scale of the deficit is an order of magnitude high.
Regardless, the GOP claims that spending cuts come next.
Lets hold them to that.
Simpson/Bowles was some time ago and while I recall some reasonable aspects to it, ultimately it was premised on known at the time false concepts of how taxes work and as a consequence it combined beneficial spending cuts with actually harmful tax increases.
It is possible that Simpson Bowles would have worked better than what was ultimately done.
But that does not make it good.
I would prefer tax simplification – eliminate ALL deductions – except the standard deduction,
and otherwise have as flat a tax as possible. Eliminating all business and corporate taxes.
Notice I have not set rates. While rates matter – the simplification is far more important.
My goals are non deductions (or subsidies) of any kind – they are all horribly economically distortive. As close to flat taxes as possible – with very nearly everyone having to pay enough of the cost of government that they have a meaningful voice in spending decisions.
After that set the rates as necescary to balance the budget.
That would strongly incentivize cutting spending.
I would make the simplification permanent, while the rate gets reset as needed to clear the deficit.
Basically eliminate congresses ability to create deductions and subsidies, and force them every year to decide whether to increase taxes or decrease spending and face the political consequences of that decisions.
“When the republicans can’t get anything passed, cut the deficit and debt and show progress, then why should anyone vote for them or the democrats?” I totally agree with you Ron on that point. I am tired of hearing Republicans preach all day about curbing spending and then not do a stinking thing about it while holding majorities in both house and senate. At least I was not disappointed, I had already given up on those guys long ago.
Mike Hatcher
You do not control either the republican or democratic party.
You only control your vote.
If you want to see spending cut – then elect someone who promises to do so.
And if they fail to deliver – elect someone else.
Republican, democrat – do not care.
This is also part of the porblem with these claims regarding political party popularity and generic ballots.
During the 2013 shutdown the populartity of Republicans tanked.
But this was vastly misunderstood.
While some people were angry at Republicans for shutting down government.
Alot of republicans were angry because they fully expected capitulation – which they got, and they were demanding consequential change.
Something like 75% of americans did not want the debt ceiling raised – without a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
More than 50% were fully prepared to see the federal government default (that was never a real possibility), and more than 50% were prepared NOT to raise the debt ceiling at all.
There is always some portion of those who are unhappy with you who are unhappy not because you are too far to the right (or left), but because you are not far enough.
Put differently If Trump’s approval is 36%, and 1/4 of those who disapprove are to the right rather than left of Trump then he will will 51% in the next election.
I am not trying to say that is exactly where we are – though I think there is a strong element of that.
Just noting that the GOP popularity in late 2013 was in the tank. And 9 months later 2014 was a very good year for them.
Dave “If you want to see spending cut – then elect someone who promises to do so.”
Now we can get into a sensible discussion away from all the crap about investigations, collusion and fake news stories that have so many possibilities of who is lying it is like a corn maize at Halloween.
I am one vote. You are one vote. Most everyone is. I have middle income revenue. Most voters are middle income. So how do we, without assets to buy elections, counter the money that the Bannons of this world have that they use to buy primary elections and get crappy candidates like Moore and Trump as the nominees. We did not have these problems when the parties had some control on who they wanted as possible candidates.
The Democrats have a way that they have just about protected their chosen one using the super delegate. They got who they wanted, albeit a bad candidate. The GOP got Trump, a worse choice. And many states get crappy candidates for senatorial candidates based on who the Bannons and Kochs of the world want, not the voters.
I am one vote, but all change starts with one person.
“And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a
Study in black and white of my fingerprints. And the only reason I’m
Singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar
Situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a
Situation like that there’s only one thing you can do and that’s walk into
The shrink wherever you are, just walk in say “Shrink, You can get
Anything you want, at Alice’s restaurant. “. And walk out. You know, if
One person, just one person does it they may think he’s really sick and
They won’t take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
They may think they’re both faggots and they won’t take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
Singin a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and walking out. They may think it’s an
Organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said
Fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and
Walking out. And friends they may thinks it’s a movement.
And that’s what it is, the Alice’s Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
All you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come’s around on the
Guitar.”
I grasp that politicians lie.
First we have to get most of them to atleast lie that they are going to cut taxes, when most politicians feel they need to tell that lie to get elected they we can start actually holding them accountable.
“I am one vote, but all change starts with one person”
No, Dave, platitudes like that aside, all governmental change starts with a consensus of opinion change is required.
“No, Dave, platitudes like that aside, all governmental change starts with a consensus of opinion change is required.”
1). Change requires more than concensus.
2). Change starts with individuals.
Thank you Santa.
I am very proud of the election process this time. Not because Jones won, but that we have fairly fair races for voters to participate in, although we still have weak turnouts.
Thanks Alabama, you done good. Now if we could only make the national elections better.
Sorry about Moore (and others) not getting “a fair trial”, but at this point we are on a “if there is smoke, there must be fire” judgement binge. Perhaps someday we may have a better way, but for now, the chickens/meToos will come home to roost on big and little
perves” alike. They may have had their way for too long.
I’m proud of our election process most of the time, dduck.
Regardless of what he did or did not do 40 years ago, Moore was a terrible candidate, and thousands of Republican voters in the reddest of red states decided to stay home, rather than vote for him. So, Jones won.
Same with Hillary. She was a terrible candidate, and Democratic voters stayed home, even in blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin, rather than vote for her. Trump got fewer votes in Michigan than Romney got in 2012, but won the state.
The system works much more often than it doesn’t work. If we weren’t going through this Russian collusion charade, and we were getting some reasonable, non-hysterical reporting on Trump, maybe we’d all be able to discuss what kind of president he’s turning out to be. No doubt we would disagree. But it would be more rational, less emotional.
Instead, all we do is re-litigate the election. The election that was decided by Americans who came out to vote.
(By “we,” I mean Americans. Not just TNM commenters ☺ )
More Americans came out to vote for Clinton.
The anti-tRUMP vote is continuing.
As will the anti-GOP vote unless they can dump him.
Still trying to re-litigate the election.
The election had rules – just like a football games.
In football you win by carrying the ball accross the goal line more often than the other team.
You can have 10 times as many yards or first downs.
Coaches seek to get first downs, and gain yards – BECAUSE those correlate strongly with scoring and winning. But their goal is to win. Not accumulate yards.
Clinton knew the rules, Trump knew the rules. Clinton’s strategy was to win the majority of electoral votes, not win the popular vote, so was Trump. Both could easily have gotten more people to vote in states they were already certain to win.
Anyway if you do not like the rules – change them. Amend the constitution.
Clinton lost. It is irrelevant – atleast to the election results, how many popular votes she got.
She was not even close in the electoral college.
There are no concellation prizes. There are many other criteria by which Clinton may have done better. But not the one that counts.
We have listened to 8 years of Obama saying elections have consequnces.
Well sing 2009 Republicans have been running the table.
Dave “Anyway if you do not like the rules – change them. Amend the constitution”
Only Libertarians want to follow the constitution because it is hard to make changes to law when you have to follow the dictates of the constitution. Others in both parties want to legislate changes to rights, freedoms and constitutional dictates because it is much easier to cram down changes in this manner than to do it the right way.
All things in balance, Ron.
Sometimes it’s proper to legislatively ‘cram’ through necessary laws because of the difficulty of ratifying Constitutional Amendments. Case in point:
“The Child Labor Amendment got Congressional approval in 1924. Proposed by Ohio Representative Israel Moore Foster, the amendment sought to curb some of the era’s horrifying child labor practices by giving Congress the exclusive power to “limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.”
As the time, there seemed to be a real need for better child labor regulation. The workforce of 10-to-16-year-olds had ballooned to over two million kids, and many of them weren’t doing light work like mowing lawns and delivering newspapers. Twenty-eight states ratified the amendment during the 1920s and 1930s, but it never got the necessary three-quarters vote.
You might have noticed, though, that your 12-year-old didn’t traipse off to a shift at the steel mill this morning. Thank FDR. In 1938 he signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which nixed labor by children under 16 or hazardous work by those under 18. In 1941 the Supreme Court upheld these provisions, which effectively meant that the Child Labor Amendment wasn’t necessary anymore. “
http://mentalfloss.com/article/24412/6-constitutional-amendments-just-missed-cut
Jay there is a big difference in these issues. The constitution does not specify anywhere what the requirement for working is. Age, sex, etc. And when discrimination was considered, it was added by amendment. However it does specifically state in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution what the qualifications are for being president. So where some support legislation to change that, my position is whenever the constitution has specific requirements written into that document, then an amendment needs to be approved to change that requirement. If stated, those requirement are changed only by amendment. If not stated, then the constitution specifically requires those not be considered until added by an amendment.
Whenever the constitution does not grant a specific power to the federal government, it requires a constitutional amendment to grant that power tot he federal government.
Wherever the constitution specifically constraints the states, or government gnerally, it requires a constitutional amendment to grant that power to states.
The constitution explicitly bars all govenrment from interfering in contracts.
That pretty much precludes any government involvment id voluntary free exchange.
When you post this kind of stuff – does it not cross your mind that I am near certain to check the facts you claim ?
You get angry purportedly because I am “arrogant” – i.e. I always have to be right.
You do not seem to grasp there is no arrogance.
I have just learned long ago that just because I am myriads of others beleive something to be true – does not make it true.
Much of what you think is “common sense” – is “fake news” garbage.
Most everyone who is libertarian that I know of became libertarian the same simple way.
They started to question “received wisdom” they bothered to check what was being sold to them as common sense facts, and found near universally these were sufficiently wrong that in many instances they rose to the level of lies.
Child labor laws might emotionally appeal to you.
But child labor in the US was not rising dramatically when a constitutional amendment was proposed or when laws proscribing it had passed.
In actual fact it had declined 800% since 1900 and had all but disappeared.
Being right nearly all the time is pretty easy – check your facts.
Learn that “common sense” is just garbage
It might be commonly beleived, but is it nonsense.
Regardless, you should already know that when you post this kind of stuff I am not merely going to disagree, I am going to check it out.
I think that you are angry with my posts, not because they are prolific, but because I expose your claims and arguments as objectively false. .
“I think that you are angry with my posts, not because they are prolific, but because I expose your claims and arguments as objectively false.”
There was NOTHING objectively FALSE in the comment.
’All things in balance..’ a QUALIFYING OPINION. Prove it objectively false.
The Child Labor Amendment did not pass. FACT.
FDRs Child Labor Law was enacted. FACT.
Your assertion, however, INTIMATING that the Child Labor Law was superfluous is subjectively FALSE opinion.
I get angry with you because you are a rigid minded Twerp who can’t distinguish nuance from nonsense, and compounds that fault with long winded regergatation.
Other than that, you’re a great guy. Really great. Tremendously and prolifically grrrreat! I’m sure you’d be a great guy to meet for dinner at a gourmet restaurant, where you’d no doubt give a twenty minute great great great explanation of each dish, it’s history, provenance, proper way to serve and eat and digest each mouthful, and the correct objectively factual manner in which to use the silverware.
You stated that it was necescary – it clearly was not. You stated that the workforce had ballooned that was patently false. At the time approximately 2% of Children were in the workforce, the Population was 1/3 what it is today.
TODAY there are only about 25m children ages 10-16 in the US in 1950 that number was 1/2 that, in 1920 there were likely less than 8M children 10-16 If 25% of them were working – Children in the workforce peaked at 12% in 1900 – that would have been less than 1M children, by the time the amendment was proposed the number was half that and by the time FDR signed a law it was half again.
So yes, you are objectively wrong about several facts
Child labor was falling throughout the 20th century not rising as you claim. The actual numbers were a fraction of what you claim. There was no necessity – not when the amendment was proposed, not when FDR signed a law, not when SCOTUS improperly found it constitutional.
Further by the same data I provided you as with all these other wild claims of benefits.
There was no post law change in the trend of child labor – if anything the rate of decline in child labor slowed. So the law had no effect – therefore there is nothing to thank FDR for.
I did not challenge your claim that an amendment was proposed or a law was passed – you are correct those are objective facts.
If you are going to argue that an assertion of necescity is merely an oppinion – then nothing you write is worth reading because you are bandying about charged words without giving them meaning. When you shout fire and there is no fire – that is deceipt. Wehn you claim necescity and there is no necescity that is deceipt.
Regardless, you represented child labor as increasing – at a time when it not only was declining, but had been declining for decades – again a factual error.
You also represented the number of children working grossly in error – between a factor of 4 and a factor of 8 off – depending on whether you meant talking 1920 or 1938.
Regardless it is unlikely there were 2M children working in the US at the peak of child labor in 1900. And even at that time the vast majority of those were engaged in farm work, not factory work.
If not getting facts compleyely wrong is being “a rigid minded twerp” I take that as a compliment.
The errors you made are not “nuance” They are complete lunacy, not only do you have the raw numbers wrong, you have the direction of the trend wrong and the impact of the law wrong.
It is not “nuance” to say that your claims for the FLSA are just crap. It has no measurable impact on child labor.
But the bigger issue is your claim of necescity – because it is central to pretty much the entire debate. Using bogus facts, representing trends exactly the opposite of what they are and claiming benefits that never occur has always been the Modus Operandi of advocates of greater government internvention justified by patently false claims of necescity.
Had you tried to make an argument consistent with the facts it would have gone something like
despite rapidly declining child labor, Rep. Moore attempted to pass a constitutional amendment to fix something that had existed for all of prior human existance, that had actually been declining as a consequence of the rising standards of living in the industrial revolution, and was diminishing rapidly starting 20 years before and was going away on its own. That 15 years later when child labor had declined by more than 100% more FDR passed a law regulating it that resulted in no change at all.
There is no necescity here, there is no benefit here.
You have picked likely deliberately an issue that pulls at all of our heart strings and provokes a knee jerk response from everyone – that absolutely conforms to your and Roby’s premise “principle” of common sense, You have picked what should be one of the best possible arguments for government and regulation.
And you have abjectly failed.
It is certainly true that ordinary people think the regulation of child labor is common sense and a necescity. It is also absolutely true as an objective fact that it was not necescary not merely because of the fact that it was diminishing rapidly on its own, but more significantly because the law had NO EFFECT.
Common sense – as it extremely often is was WRONG.
Worse still this was knowable then, but even less excusable it was absolutely knowable when you made the claim.
FDR and Rep. Foster can claim some ignorance. They can not have known for certain that neither a constitutional amendment nor the FLSA were going to have a notable impact.
But you have the benefit of hindsight or actual facts about the effect.
What is the world you wish to live in – one in which people say and beleive stupid things contradicted by facts and they make decisions based on false understanding or misrepresentations of the facts, and then congradulate themselves for saving the workd when they have done next to nothing, and the most significant impact has been negative ?
Or do you want a world were someone is there to say “the emperor has no clothes”.
I would prefer a world where when we use force – we justify the use of force, both morally, and with actual results. Where we seek to do good rather than just feel good about what we do.
“More Americans came out to vote for Clinton”
For more than two centuries, the electoral college system has been our process of electing a president, Jay.
When the rest of the country decides that California should elect him/her all by itself, we’ll let you know. 🙄
Alabama did not “do good” it fixed a mistake. It did not do what it wanted, it just picked the lessor evil.
This is not a model to be emulated.
The best result would be for neither party to give us such bad choices.
For the people of Alabama and every other state to be able to decide who to elect based on issues, not based on who was a perv.
I am happy that Moore did not win. That is not the same as overal happy or pretending this was a good thing.
I feel the same about 2016.
I am happy Clinton did not win. I am not happy Trump did.
I have no axe to grid with Jones. He is to the right of my democratic senator.
But he is to the left of Alabama. And Alabama should have been able to elect what they wanted,
not a choice between a perv and someone out of touch with alabama.
Republicans should have defeated Moore – just as democrats should have defeated Clinton.
Democrats should have put up a better candidate than Jones – just as Republicans should have offered a better candidate than Trump.
Always electing the lessor evil is better than the converse.
It is not good.
For the first 144 years the nation didn’t let woman vote, Priscilla. Would you have been in favor of maintaining the status quo in 1920?
A system that gives the same number of Senators to California with 39.5 million population as it does to Alabama with 4.9 million population needs to be adjusted.
We amended the constitution to allow women to vote.
“A system that gives the same number of Senators to California with 39.5 million population as it does to Alabama with 4.9 million population needs to be adjusted.”
If people desire more “efficient” political representation then they are free to move to Alabama.
Regardless, the issue was debated when the constitution was drafted – and this is how they setup the senate – well they had senators chosen by the state legislatures.
If you do not like it – you can amend the constitution.
Moore is not entitled to a “fair trial” – unless you are planning to jail him.
A job is not a right, not at McD’s not in the US Senate.
It is never “unfair” to lose a job, through election, incompetence, or misfortune.
It is often unfortunate. But not getting what you want is not “unfair”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454632/roy-moore-republicans-gop-reckoning-coming
Republican releif is premature – so is that of Democrats.
Both parties need to throw out the garbage.
I expect and hope for alot more #metoo’s I expect they will continue to be spread accross the ideological spectrum.
Congratulations for succinct brevity.
Keep it up!
Jay…Report: “Bannon to intensify his war on the establishment. Live footage from his ”
Makes my point #2 stronger. I dont have a twitter account, but I get the point from the teaser before the link. While the democrats duck walk behind Shumer/Pelosi and each contain one brain cell of the collective that makes up the democrat thinking, the republicans are the only alternative for anyone not in line with the collective. So they have Collins, a true Rockefeller northeast moderate republican, they have Rand Paul that has to take his Libertarian views to one of two major parties, they have Ted Cruz, the Christian Conservative with a social value first agenda, they have the extreme Bannon far right wing nuts and finally, they provided a home for those like Trump.
You can not reach out to five or more disparate groups and satisfy their needs. When you try, you end up with nothing getting done, one or more of the divisions attacking the other and/or piss poor legislation (ie currect tax proposal)
That is why we need a strong third part. One for the liberals (democrats), one for the centrist/moderates(Collins/Paul third party) and one for the conservatives(Bannon/Trump/Cruz Republicans). With a home for more common sense thinking, over time the third party could become the majority since over 60% of voters are considered from slightly left to slightly right of center. Until that happens we will have complete dysfunction like we have in the current environment or have Obama style executive order legislation when the democrats have control.
prez dumb dumb doesn’t know his correct birthday.
At my yearly physical they do a standard mental questionnaire for early signs of Alzheimer’s symptoms. One of the questions that pops up frequently is ‘what is your birthdate’ … get that wrong and it’s a warning alert your memory may be going.
Schlump filled out an absentee ballot for the NY election. He got his birth month wrong.
“Officials said the President’s ballot was fine. But that was before the Daily News pointed out to an official that the date of birth on his application was a full month off.
Trump, 71, was born on June 14, 1946, but his ballot application lists his birthday as July.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/melania-ivanka-jared-mayoral-election-votes-didn-count-article-1.3692124
This is why they need to amend the constitution and add to its requirements that any individual taking office must not have turn 61 before inauguration day. That would insure their last year in office would be age 65. Yes there is something called early onset Alzheimer’s, but that would be known by age 61.
Maybe he will be diagnosed and then not seek reelection in 2020.
or maybe he wrote the wrong number.
The Constitution has to be amended to say any President who, after getting elected, acts with the buffoonery of Clarabelle the Clown, should suffer the Quick humiliation of impeachment, and for two years after be forced to wear a shirt that says “I Am an Asswipe!”
Jay, “The Constitution has to be amended to say any President who, after getting elected, acts with the buffoonery of Clarabelle the Clown, should suffer the Quick humiliation of impeachment, and for two years after be forced to wear a shirt that says “I Am an Asswipe!””
Were you the class clown and created dysfunction to cover your inability to discuss issues in a logical intellegent manner? I agree with you and offer a logical solution to insure someone like RR would not get reelected after significant evidence of some mental dysfunction and you come back with that comment?
I don’t know….Obama, who was only in his 40’s when he became president, once said that he had been to 57 states during the campaign. Should we have assumed that he was losing his marbles, or just that he was exhausted?
This is another instance in which the unreliable media does us all a disservice. A mistake by one candidate is a nothingburger, a similar mistake by another is a 5-alarm fire.
“. A mistake by one candidate is a nothingburger, ”
True. But culmative signs/mistakes can be a somethingburger.
Aside from NUMEROUS observations (some you’ve agreed on in the past) of malignant narcissism, sociopathy, paranoia, a delusional detachment from reality, lack of self control (groping, incessant tweeting, frequent temper tantrum outbursts), conspiracy fantasies, aversion to facts, delusional levels of grandiosity (he’s the best, the greatest, the only one who…) there are many other particular signs of approaching mental deterioration: inability to concentrate (reported over and over by aides), slurring of words (didn’t you hear that recent video?), fragmented and repetitive speech patterns, and let’s not forget his admitted inability to sleep normally. Neurologists asked to examine his speech habits found he has reverted to Using simpler words than he used in the 1980s and 90s, which could be another indication of cognitive decline.
Individually these symptoms don’t confirm that his brain is deteriorating, but culmatively they indicate the looney bird is getting loonier, as we say in polite scientific circles.
Save America! Dump the Schlump!
Jay “Save America! Dump the Schlump!”
You keep saying this. You have said it about as many times as Dave post comments on this site. But you are offering no steps in how this can be accomplished.
How do we make this happen? Impeachment? How? Mental capacity? How?
Can you give us something to respond to other than “Yep we agree he needs to go”
So, I agree he needs to go. Best thing is if he leaves by the spring and mike Pence takes over. So now that I have agreed, how do we make it happen. Its your idea.
I would prefer that he were punished and stay.
While Pence is someone I would be more willing to trust with my wife of daughter
I would trust Trump over Pence with the country.
So what is the appropriate punishement for Trump ?
Dave “So what is the appropriate punishement for Trump ?”
That is what I keep asking Jay because he is the one who keeps saying “dump the schrump”
I can not get an answer on how he propses to do that. Its his idea, not mine, I just agreed with him.
By the way, I am 180′ opposite you on Pence. I think Trump is one brain cell from going off the deep end. Pence is much more stable and represents more of my political positions than trump. Given a choice of Rubio, Kasich or another GOP member, I would support them over Pence, but Pence to me is much improvement over trump.
ce
I do not know if I could have voted for Trump if there were no sexual harrassment allegations.
But I do know that those sealed the deal.
There is alot that Trump campaigned on that I opposed – but he is either not doing those things or not doing them in the stupid way he campaigned.
There are things Trump has done – meaning his actions are president – not his words that I disagree with. While I support his handling of Syrian and ISIS, he did the wrong thing in afghanistan and not what he promised
With respect to his cabinet nominees, he commitment to downsize government and to reduce the burdern of regulation.
I do not think Rand Paul who beleives in those more than Trump could have accomplished what Trump has.
I do not think Trump is stupid. in fact I think he is incredibly smart. He did nto get where he is by accident or luck.
Even his tweets and inflamitory rhetoric is I think more thoughtout that he is credited with.
He has been very successful diplomatically because:
He has made it clear he does nto feel bound by the past
He has made anyone negotiating with him beleive he is unpredictable and nuts. I think he is playing an effective game of good cop/bad cop with Tillerson.
I think some of the purported conflicts between him and his cabinet are real.
I think some are deliberately staged.
I honestly think he is playing the press like a violin.
I think he is playing the left as well.
I do not think he is perfect. I think he has made plenty of mistakes.
I think that he has a far stronger base – a Trump base, not a GOP base than people grasp.
But he does nto grasp that just because Trump voters will loyally vote for Trump, does not mean they will voter for Trump’;s candidate.
I do nto think he has any coattails.
Anyway he is mostly doing the right thing with the government, judiciary, regulation an the economy,
and I do not think any other candidate would have done as well.
I do nto think he does all of this prefectly – I think his very strong federalist strain in his nominees is going to positively transform the courts in a way no one else would have.
At the same time only about 1/2 his nominees are federalist. the rest are run of the mill conservatives and some of them are bad. But clinton would have given us a disaster.
“Aside from NUMEROUS observations (some you’ve agreed on in the past) of malignant narcissism, sociopathy, paranoia, a delusional detachment from reality, lack of self control (groping, incessant tweeting, frequent temper tantrum outbursts), conspiracy fantasies, aversion to facts, delusional levels of grandiosity (he’s the best, the greatest, the only one who…) there are many other particular signs of approaching mental deterioration: ”
There is no “psychological potpouri” diagnosis in the DSM.
Ignoring the fact that pschiatrists can not ethically diagnose a person they have not met.
Malignant narcissism and sociopathy are the same thing.
These typically require a score of 30 or above on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). There are 20 elements to the test. there are strict criteria for grading the test.
i.e. “glibness and superficial charm” are one element but that has a narrow and specific meaning for the purpose of the test. Further each item is scored on a 3 point scale.
0 means the element is not present or present to the degree found in 80% of the population,
1 means the element is evident in some portions of the persons life.
2 means the element thoroughly pervades all aspects of the persons life and has been evident from an early age to the present.
It is nearly impossible to score 30 without having been incarcerated several times.
With respect to the rest of your list – diagnostically many of these are mutually exclusive.
sociopath’s as an example do not trust others. But they are also never actually paranoid.
They are not “fearful” of the potential bad acts of others.
Sociopaths are also never delusional.
Conversely there are few high functioning paranoids and schitophrenics are none to the extent they could get elected president.
Further many of the behaviors you note – to the extent Trump actually has them, are life long, not recent.
Trump has ALWAYS been grandiose.
Anyway, while I do not think that anything you are spewing is more than some very bizzare wishful thinking, it is separately true that dementia is increasingly common with age and that Trump has SOME risk factors – he also has some attributes the lower risk.
Regardless, it is a concern that we should have for any older president – that would include Hillary.
It is also not something that will not be self evident if it actually becomes serious.
It is also something that does not matter.
The outcome that Jay is concerned about – that Trump actually has dementia AND continues to function as president both unchecked and undiscovered is impossible.
The real possibilities:
It is nothing
Trump is developing dementia, we will find out and Pence will become president.
Trump is developing dementia, those close to him will manage to keep it secret and someone else will function as “shadow president”.
What will not happen is Trump with dementia, no one finding out and Trump as unchecked and demented run the country.
Frankly the odds of us not finding out are near zero. Trump has a very high public profile, if he receded everyone would become suspcious.
But so many are completely incapable of following their conjecture past the first order surface.
I get tired of dellusional hypothesis that the earth will be struck by a secret asteroid most life will be wiped out and it will be concealed from us.
I totally disagree with all of you that he needs to go (or in Dave’s scenario, that he be punished.) What high crime or misdemeanor has he committed? Even his female accusers are being paid off (posted a link from The Hill further down on this thread) and most of them are claiming things that are unprovable.
He needs to go because he’s a jerk?
In “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” a bunch of troubled men are kept drugged and locked up in an insane asylum. Some of them are insane, some are addicts, some have communication disorders. They’re treated like babies by Nurse Ratched, so they think that she cares about them (Spoiler: she can’t stand them, thinks that they’re deplorable). Until Randall McMurphy comes along, and convinces them that she doesn’t care about them at all, she’s just drugging them so that she doesn’t have to deal with them. McMurphy is a rude, not very nice guy, but he knows that many of these men deserve their freedom. McMurphy is a jerk, but he knows what’s going on, he tries to help, and he is destroyed for his efforts.
Not all jerks are bad guys. And, we should demand a pretty high standard of proof that a president has committed high crimes before we agree that he needs to be destroyed.
Are you serious?
He ADMITTED unwanted gropings and kissing and vagina diddling on that audio.
He also admitted trying to “fuck” a married woman on that audio, that was verified by her.
Youre suggesting he lied about the gropes and kisses and TicTacs but not the seduction attempt?
What about this new revelation? More lies to get El Grope?
https://pagesix.com/2017/12/08/ex-fox-news-anchor-claims-trump-tried-to-kiss-her/
I do not buy Trump’s assertion that the access hollywood tape is a fabrication.
At the same time it is not a confession either.
It is bragging. It is damaging bragging.
But Hyperbolee is Trump’s middle name.
I think everyone agree’s he is prone to grandious exageration.
If everything else is exagerated – why not this ?
I beleive his accusers – but not primarily because of the access hollywood tape.
That is an admission of bad attitudes, not a reliable confession of specific conduct.
He has had sex with married women. We all got that.
That bother’s me. As Ross Perot said if his wife can not trust a candidate, then voters should not.
But unfortunately that standard is shot to hell.
Regardless, the offended party in a consensual sexual encounter with another woman would be your spouse
Priscilla,”He needs to go because he’s a jerk?”
I don’t think I said that. I think I was responding to Jay comment and link to diminished mental capacity. I used that to reiterate my position that the office of president should be no different than a large percent of our large corporations that have mandatory retirement age policies. I would like to see that for congress also. And combine those changes with term limits.
If you beleive that Trump’s conduct with women is reprehensible – do something.
Do not buy Trump merchandise, do not play golf at his golf courses, do not rent his apartments, buy his condo’s gamble in his casino’s. Do not work for him.
Each of us is free to do that, we are also free to expect others who share the same views do so.
With respect to paid journalism – if that bothers you – do not buy those papers or trust stories those sources.
Government is rarely the only or best way to punish bad conduct.
It is only the appropriate way when force or fraud are involved.
One flew over the Cuckoo’s nest is a great anology.
A real world one would be Oskar Schindler.
The man was a crook, a war profiteer, he exploted the jews for his own profit.
Absolutely no one on the planet would have picked him as the man who would be single handedly and personally responsible for saving 2/3 of the jews in Poland.
I feel the same way about Bill Clinton – on the one hand I want him in Jail.
He is a rapist and he lied under oath.
On the other domestically he was a good president.
I hate saying that, but it is still true.
Sorry, Ron, I misunderstood your comment that he had to go.
Trump is 71. I don’t think that that is so old that we need to assume that his mental capacity is diminished. There are plenty of people well into their 80’s and even 90’s that are mentally sharp. Frankly, given the enormous stress that Trump is under ~ greater, I think even than most other presidents, he seems to be pretty focused. And, for whatever reason, it’s his enemies that seem to be going crazy.
I mean, Hillary said that Bill never tweeted about his problems, when he was president. Does the fact that Twitter didn’t exist back then, mean that she is demented?
That said, I am in favor of term limits for congresspeople, and I would also be in favor of limiting presidents to a single 6 year term.
I’m on the fence about a mandatory retirement age, but I lean against it. Judge each man and woman on his or her own merits.
Priscilla, yes people can be healthy well into their 80’s and 90’s. But with the increasing numbers of people being diagnosed with dementia in their 60’s for whatever reason compared to the past, it is disturbing to think someone can be elected and be diagnosed after taking office. Why? Just think how long and difficult it will be to exercise the 25th amendment. It takes a majority of the cabinet to agree and unless the president is “really” mentally unstable, that would almost be impossible to accomplish. One only needs to look back on Reagan’s last term in office when Nancy was finishing sentences, his changing speech patterns and his forgetting certain things during meetings. Supposedly it did not effect his judgement, but someone with faster developing dementia could be in office and it could be covered up for sometime by aides and others. He also had career politicians as advisers to cover up some of these symptoms.
And you really think Trump is under stress? I think he could care less who he pisses off and what gets done or not done. If he cared he would not alienate Pelosi and Shumer. Maybe he would not get their vote, but he is alienating almost any and every institution in Washington. My personal belief is he is one term president by choice. Come in, break the mold, undo everything that previous administrations have done and leave the next president with a clean slate to start over with. Even his allowing some right wing wacko group to put up nominees for court appointments shows he is not interested in even that. And that is probably going to be his legacy if they put someone remotely qualified to service in that function. Even Sotomayor had courtroom experience in one way or another before being nominated by 41 for her first federal court.
If the Cabinet votes that Trump is incapacitated, Pence become Acting President immediately.
The process to remove Trump – if he is able to fight, is more difficult than impeachment – but much faster. Likely less than a month.
But it requires a 2.3 majority of BOTH the house and senate.
You are not getting that unless there is real evidence of actual and significant impairment.
It is not going to happen because you do not like Trump.
Jay;
In the event that Trump has or is developing dimensia – that will likely come up in his physical, and you will actually get your opportunity to invoke the 25th amendment.
That should make you happy.
In the mean time I am not going to presume that because Trump appears to have written a 7 instead of a 6 is meaningful until there is better evidence.
I hope that Trump does nto have dimensia – my father had vascular dimensia the last several years of his life and a friends wife developed early onset alzheimers.
That is one of the worst ways I know someone can die, and I would not wish that on my worst enemy.
But you can celebrate hoping that Trump has alzheimers.
You have as much chance of seeing a real, accurate medical assessment of his health and mental condition as you did of seeing his taxes.
“You have as much chance of seeing a real, accurate medical assessment of his health and mental condition as you did of seeing his taxes.”
Maybe, but I doubt that. This is not 1918 when the fact that Wilson was completely debilitated by a stroke and his wife became defacto president until 1921.
Regardless, you are objectively afraid of an impossibility.
It is possible that Trump has or is developing demensia.
It is possible but highly unlikely that can be concealed from us.
It is not possible that Trump can both have or be developing demenia and be able to continue to govern the country with the same strength and vigor has has thus far.
If he actually has or is developing demensia and that is being concealed from us – then he will have to have a substantially decreased public presence, and decisions will have to be made by someone who is not Donald Trump. Even if Trump secretly has demensia – you will still have gotten what you want – someone else will be “secretly” president.
But in the real world that will not happen – either he has demensia and we will find out, or he does not.
Trump can conceal his tax returns because he is not obligated to provide tham and because not providing them is a passive action that does not involve others.
Concealing Trump’s incompetence is an active action that requires a fairly broad conspiracy.
You do not think past the first order trivially obvious aspects of your arguments.
This is how the government works, too down, when you have a petulant temper-tantrum fool as president
So the media asks the classic “have you stopped beating your wife yet” question.
And you bite hook line and sinker.
Why would “US Officials” comment on a false allegation for a fake news leak ?
While this was reported more than a year ago, it is coming up again now – because the FBI and DOJ are using it to stonewall congress.
https://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=twitter
This is how the political process is manipulated in modern technological America: something needs to be done about it, but what?
https://twitter.com/agschneiderman/status/941070886077071360
Again more of this “have you stopped beating your wife” nonsense.
Eric Schneiderman is the New York AG who is NOT investigating corruption in New York but wasting his time trying to do the job of the federal government.
If his allegations are true – so what ?
The FCC reversed Net Neutrality. Ajit Pai has been pushing for that since Before NN was implimented,
one or a billion “fake” facebook posts, it does not matter.
One of the stupidist things about this whole “social media” nonsense is that it is a bad parody of the Orville episode the majority.
We do not determine the law by facebook upvotes.
I doubt Eric Schneiderman’s claims specifically because – it is not worth anyone’s effort to create bazzillions of fake accounts and then flood posts on anything.
This is an enormous amount of work, that pretty much can not be done without getting caught that whether caught or not will have no real effect.
If Net Neutrality is repealed:
● the internet will cost $879.95 per day
● Millions will lose their lives
● Displaced internet hobos will aimlessly ride freightcars around the barren American wasteland
● Stealing pies from our window sills
Please retweet and save our pies
I don’t know for sure what the effect of repealing NN will be, neither do you.
But I predict within two years your internet monthly bill will increase $15 to $20
Jay,I also do not know what the cost will be. But I do know one thing. Tonights news had some black female representative running her mouth about the internet and she said something like ” a free and open internet is a right”. Last time I looked at anything aboutbthe constitution, I did not see that in it. The providers spend money on equipment to lrovide this service. When usage increases and demand increases, they have to add equipment. That increases their cost. When content providers increase data output, that increases demand on the providers. That increases provider cost.
So the question is, do 100% of the provider customers share the increased cost even if they are low use customers (ie email and a few Amazon purchases a year), or does the providers charge based on data usage (Netflex, Spotify, Apple Music,online games) .
People that have their noses plastered in a screen all day will say NN is a right. People who use the internet occasionally each day will say NN is not needed.
I say if I order a triple scoop ice cream cone, I should pay more than you do ordering a single scoop cone.
The key issue regarding “net neutrality” is the false presumption that “equality” is a good idea in anything much less the internet.
I have noted already that Video, voice, web, p2p and email are all different,
the travel the internet by the same routes and using the same TCP/IP protocol.
But long ago netwrok designers grasped that all trafic is not equal and should not be treated the same, and TCP/IP was extended to support QOS – which means nothing more than that a particular service can notify the network of its requirements and receive the priority necescary to be delivered according to its needs. This has been possible for a long time,
But broad changes in the internet take time. The US still uses IPV4 because so much legacy equipment is in place, while most of the rest of the world uses IPv6.
The end of net neutrality means that ISP will not be barred from treating different traffic diffrently.
It means they are allowed to use QOS to permit streaming services to be delivered faster with higher priority and to lower the priority of email and p2p and web traffic.
But the left is fixated on equality in all things and thinks that the idea that different services might have different needs is somehow evil.
ISP’s will almost certainly impliment some aspects of prioritzation immediately – they will reduce the priority of P2P traffic and that will benefit nearly all of us.
There will be some issues – because all ISP’s all internet equipment, all equipment in peoples homes does not support what is called Traffic shaping – prioritizing or deprioritizing different types of traffic.
It is unlikely that netflix will benefit immediately.
Further demand traffic shaping is optional.
It is not likely that an ISP will deprioitize Netflix. It is likely they will leave them alone as doing otherwise would risk and FTC complaint.
So things will remain the same – but they will likely approach Netflix and say – we will support QOS for netflix traffic – if you give us money to do so.
And netflix may come back to customers and say – you can keep what you have or pay $1/month more to get mroe reliable streaming.
So far so good, where the left starts frothing is many ISP’s like Comcast offer their own streaming and voice services, and it is near certain they will provide those as robustly as possible, and charge themselves nothing to do so, as a result unless netflix agrees to pay the ISP more their streaming will be inferior to that of the ISP.
But again no one will lose what they already have. What will change is they may have more choices that come at a cost for better service.
You are correct it is impossible to make absolute prredictions about the future.
The tax cut could bring in trillions of new revenue, Obama Care could have saved every family 2500/year, it could have saved lives.
But we can actually use the facts and economic knowledge we have particularly data and make predictions based on that that have the highest probability of being correct.
We have had NN for a bit over 2 years. There has been no perceptible OVERALL change as a consequence, it is therefore most probable there will be no perceptable overall change as a result of its repeal.
The odds are greater that your internet bill in real rather than nominal dollars will decline than rise.
As that is what nearly all free market prices do.
And in fact they must – because standard of living can not rise overall unless overtime we are able to buy more while preforming the same amount of labor.
There are likely to be localized changes – Netflix will likely have a choice between the same shitty quality delivery they provide now, or paying more for more relibale service. If Netflix and other streaming services choose the letter the quality of streaming for you will increase.
It is highly unlikely that you will see more than a temporary increase in price from netflix – because they have plenty of competition and that makes price increases difficult.
I paid about $35/month for High Speed internet service (over a modem) in the 80’s
I pay about $80/month for High Speed Internet service that is about 10,000 times faster today.
In real dollars I pay much less for much much more.
That is how free markets work.
Further in the 80’s that service did not include phone service or streaming.
I paid additional fees for both that are provided as part of the high speed internet service I have today.
At the core of the NN debate is something that we have been trying to impliment on the internet for decades – it is a technology called quality of service.
The purpose of QOS is to make it so that those things – like streaming video that have to arrive in a very short time period or the video is disrupted get prioritized over voice which would be a lower priotiy, web browsing which would be lower still, P2P which would be even lower, and email which would be lower still.
When you go to the ER for an emergency – they do not serve people first come first served,.
They do not have Emergency Neutrality. No sane person would want that.
The person having a stroke or heart attack gets priority over the person with a cold.
Neitrality sounds good. but it rarely is.
Often what we call common sense or common decency is really a very bad idea.
https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/941397262034497539
The reason that the FCC imposed “NN aka screw up the internet” in 2015 was because congress refused to act.
NN is another case of the Obama administration exceeding its authority.
The FCC does not have jurisdiction over the internet.
If you want it to – pass a law.
In 1980 wise people were discussing eliminating the FCC it is entirely unnecescary.
As Ajut Pai has noted, most of what people wish to accomplish via NN is already inside the domain of the FTC – which rightly or wrongly does already have authority over the predatory conduct of any business. Further they have about a century of experience with such conduct that has mostly taught them to keep their hands off.
The world is not going to end, people are not going to die if we go back to the way things were in 2015.
I doubt you or anyone else can tell me some aspect of your life that was improved by the past 2 years of NN.
“I doubt you or anyone else can tell me some aspect of your life that was improved by the past 2 years of NN.”
My service and basic costs didn’t get any better, OR any worse.
But NN wasn’t in place long enough to determine its effect, plus or minus.
There are people whose opinion I trust on both sides of the issue. They have equally reputable views for and against.
But evaluating the arguments, two main points of view emerge
.
(a) Those who say there is potential for harm if NN is discontinued. Higher costs to consumers, less competition, etc. and I fairly sure there will be price increases, though not prohibitive ones, $15 or $20 a month down the road
(b) Those who say nothing will change with revocation. And the main arguments I see for revoking are complaints it’s illegal, shouldn’t have been enacted, etc. but nothing predicting consumers will benefit from returning to the status quo.
I don’t find that a convincing argument for revoking. Add the controversy over alleged fake opinion altering emails, etc, and I think what’s best is to delay repealing it until a clearer understanding of the implications emerge. Additional hearings, etc. – why the push to do it now?
Your service was unchanged because it was not legally allowed to get worse – and would not likely have anyway. and there was no incentive to make it better.
NN is a misnomer. It means that improvements will be very slow.
The elimination of NN means that improvement will come faster, and possibly as an increased cost option. What is highly unlikely is that service will stay the same or decline and costs rise.
Most of the debate over NN is total idiocy from people who are technologically clueless.
While NN has effects beyond Traffic Shapping and QOS anyone talking about NN that is unfamiliar with either term is an IYI and should be ignored.
NN have almost nothing to do with the breadth of competition. The only “competitive” aspect is that NN makes it more difficult for ISP’s to favor their own strreaming services over those of others. It means they can not charge Netflix more for guaranteed better delivery, and it means they can not offer it for their own streaming service.
Therefore they have two choices – provide it to everyone for free, or do not provide it at all.
I fully expect lots of changes, though I am not sure how quickly they will take place.
There is alot of infrastructure to replace, but the inctives are better to do so.
With respect to real impediments to actual competition – those have existed for decades, will exist tomorow and come from state and local governments treating CABLE and phone services as monopolies. NN did not fix that killing NN will not change that.
Anyway the most likely outcome is more options for better service which you might have to pay for until they get incorporated into base packages, which will inevitably occur.
Greater market freedom in the long run ALWAYS drives price down and quality up.
There is no long term example in a free market of anything else ever happening.
The argument for revoking is that Net Neutrality is actually illegal under current law – the internet is outside the domain of the FCC.
The FCC never had the legal authority to enact net neutrality.
Congress refused to give it to them.
Under Obama they circumvented that refusal by concocting the authority from thin air.
Now that the FCC is undoing something congress never gave them to power to do,
you want to delay while waiting for congress to not do what congress has nto been willing to do before ?
The Right Wing Goofball On Fox Needs Rotor Rootering.
Your citing Ben Rhoades ?
Regardless, if you need “refutation” of Rhoades post – read Strzok’s texts.
If these are a reflection of one of the most conservative institutions in the federal govenrment – then the rest of the federal govenrment is taken over by communists.
Again do you think something is true – just because someone says it to you ?’
Try thinking to the next step ?
If as Mr. Rhoads says the FBI is so conservative – is that consistent with Mr. Rhoads texts ?
Further, does it matter if 95% of the rank and file FBI is Alabama conservative, if everyone involved in all the relevant investigations has either been forced to sign a non-disclosure barring them from even talking to congress – or is Preter Strzok or the numerous other partisans that have been exposed.
If as Rhoads claims the FBI is so conservative – they why is it that those involved in the Trump and Clinton investigations are all so deeply tied to Clinton and democrats ?
I think that Rhoads is actually correct – most of the FBI is conservative.
I think that Wray, and Rosenstein and … are correct that most of the FBI is good people with impecable integrity.
But most is not all, and what is evident is that those at the top of DOJ, FBI and the Mueller investigation are very nearly all not merely on the left but even more importantly engaged in a coverup of their own prior malfeasance.
The Strzok text refering to the need for “insurance” is what a prosecutor in a criminal cases would call consciousness of guilt. I would further note that Strzok’s texts provide a credible basis for a conspiracy. While they do not reveal “the plan” they make clear that Strzok and several ranking FBI/DOJ people had “a plan” to provide “insurance” in the event Trump was elected.
Please provide an innocent eplanation of those texts ?
https://goo.gl/images/CZp1pn
Cory For Prez?
Tulsi for Prez!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
Ok I’m in. Portman(OH)/Rubio(FL) v Warner(VA)/Bennett(CO)
RonP. Do you think Rubio is a phony? I don’t know why, I just feel that way.
dduck, first, I think most all politicians are phonies, its just the level of “phonious”one has.
I have been following Rubio well before his presidential campaign began. I think he is one of the less phony. I say this because he is one of the few that does not have his idiology encased in stone. He has worked multiple times with moderates and liberals on legislation.
Yes, he is a phony conservative, much like Reagan when he worked with O’Neill to get.his legislation passed. (ie tax reform and immigration reform)
One of Rubio’s weakest attributes is his lack of committment to principles.
Regardless, I do like Rubio, and think he has a bright future, and would seriously consider him as a presidential candidate over a large number of other Democrats or republicans.
I am going to throw a fit. Right around 900 comments everytime and this damn WordPress begins refusing to recognize my comments. Now writing them on Word and coping them to comments so I don’t have to retype them multiple times. BAH HUMBUG!
Dave “One of Rubio’s weakest attributes is his lack of committment to principles.”
Guess it is how you define a principled individual, There is one I believe offers a very good description by the International School. They define a principled individual as one who “.acts with integrity and honesty, with a strong sense of fairness, justice and respect for the dignity of the individual, groups and communities. They take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences that accompany them.”
I have not followed Rubio real close since he is not a Senator from my state. But from the speeches I have heard him make on the senate floor, his work with various senators where he is willing to work for legislation he believes is best for the people and country and the fact I have not heard any #metoo’s come out about him, he fits into my definition of a principled person.
Now if you mean he does not fit into the specific beliefs associated with certain ideologies that define a politician as conservative, liberal or libertarian where there is no acceptance of another belief (like Ted Cruz), then yes he would not be principled for those that have that test to pass as being principled.
I do not dislike Rubia. He is in my top 10 senators list.
I think there is a good chance he will get a serious shot at the oval.
But he is not my #1 (or #2, or #3) choice – none of which are likely to get a shot at president.
I will take him in a heart beat over most others.
I would have taken him over Trump.
But I think Trump is likely to prove a better president that Rubio would have.
I do not think rubio could have accomplished what Trump has.
I do not think anyone from washington could have.
I think it required Trump’s gargantuan ego to come to washington, say F’U and slash the things he has.
I think he should have done far more – but I do not think Rubio or anyone else would have done half so well.
I like Tulsi.
Dang, reading that link could almost convince me to vote for her. As of that writing she supported a lot of my positions. However if she got the nomination, most likely she would adopt the Pelosi/Shumer agenda and that would cure my mental lapse. I would also need to hear more about her environmental proposals and how she thinks Social Security and Medicare can continue as is without some changes (like every other democrat and republican in office).SS and medicare are going to have to be changed, it is just who has the strength to do it.
I also do not oppose protection of the environment, but two things happen that I don’t support. One, taking action to prevent land owners to use their land without the government taking possession of that land at the fair market value if there are honest reasons of protection of that land (not the bull crap reasons Obama’s EPA restricted land use without payment for said land) and two, when the USA enters into agreements to cut gases and other pollutants, we cut the same as everyone else as a percentage of our output. No more Paris agreements where we have to cut some double digit amount over the next ten years, while china can increase double digits until 2030 something and then they begin cutting. If we agree to cut 20% over 10 years from this day forward, China agrees to the same requirement. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, especially when the gander is tops in pollution.
Thanks for the response, RonP.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454649/robert-mueller-team-investigate-the-investigators
Why we need to keep bias and personal views out of investigations.
Why we need to respect peoples rights and not entrap them.
Why law enforcement from comey and Mueller to city bicycle cops needs to be constrained by the rule of law.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/cops-catfish-obese-gay-college-student
Wow, Trump does nto trust the intelligence agencies!!!!
Sounds like my kind of guy.
My question is “Why do you ?”.
Need I list the long list of intelligence failures over the years ?
Wow, Trump refused to acknowledge something that STILL has no evidence – that Russia “influenced” our election.
We know know that though there is some debate about the scale of russian hacking attempts of US voting machines, that they failed. They particularly failed in Michigan where those intelligence agencies claimed that the Russian tried to attack Michigans Paper ballot system ?
I am supposed to trust an intelligence community that think that cellulose can be cyber attacked ?
I am supposed to trust an intelligence community which based its entire analysis of a hack of a political parties conputer network on a report produced by that political parties private secutity consultant – one know to cry wolf or actually to cry “bear” without evidence ?
Ands I am supposed to trust intelligence agencies that did not detect and worse still were wrong about russian social media.
We have numerous members ot he intelligence and law enforcement community who have said or testified that by the summer of 2016 they had seen evidence that Russia was seeking to influnce the election in favor of trump.
Yet more than a year later no one else has seen this evidence.
Not trump, not the house, not the senate, not the people.
And you want me to be upset because Trump does not trust these people ?
WHY DO YOU !
George Will: Assessing #PresidentPooPoo
“ By joining Stephen K. Bannon’s buffoonery on Moore’s behalf, the 45th president planted an exclamation point punctuating a year of hitherto unplumbed presidential depths. He completed his remarkably swift — it has taken less than 11 months — rescue of the 17th, Andrew Johnson, from the ignominy of ranking as the nation’s worst president.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-moore-endorsement-sunk-the-presidency-to-unplumbed-depths/2017/12/13/3c245482-e036-11e7-bbd0-9dfb2e37492a_story.html
The fact that I like will and that he is generally libertarian and becoming more so, does not mean that I am required to agree with him.
There is very much wrong with Trump.
As a person he is abominable.
But as a president he is doing better than Bush or Obama and may do better than Clinton.
That would put him near the top not bottom.
This is out of sequence, but the thread has become too cumbersome to tease out individual posts.
I trust Netflix’s opinion.
They’re one of my favorite content providers. Fair price, great selection, etc. (the Asian Food Porn satires are WONDERFUL, funny and thought provoking)
Well Duh! Netflex users are one of, if not the highest demand of internet services. Their users will be impacted more than any others if charges are based on usage. Why would they not oppose this. The once a day user of the internetis subsidizing their customer’s cost.
This is not about charging for usage.
It is about charging for priority. It is not even close tot he same.
Netflix will be able to deliver the same thing to people as before at the same cost.
They will have to pay more to deliver better.
Regardless, it is always stupid to predict that markets will make things worse – in the long run they never do. In the short run they rarely do.
Dave “It is about charging for priority. It is not even close tot he same.”
TOEMAYTOE—-TOEMAHTOE. Usage—Priority I said I was not well versed on NN.
But if they increase cost for Netflex for whatever reason/ word, then the faster service may cause Netflex to raise rates for customers.
Like I said earlier, if I buy a triple scoop ice cream cone and you buy a single scoop, I should pay more. We both should not pay the same ( double scoop cone) which seems to be the one of the objectives of NN. Am I wrong?
So what you are saying is that NN is a system of price controls – because that is what it is when you tell someone they can not charge for something.
When ever have price controls worked ?
I have been repeatedly trying to beat people here for only looking at the first order effects (or claims).
Jay – laws against child labor reduced the abhorant practice of child labor
reality – it had already reduced by an order of magnitude before any law was passed and the rate of decline SLOWED after the law was passed.
You say that if people can charge for something that they will.
But that is not reality.
I remember back in the 80’s – you paid by the minute for telephone service.
you paid by the minute for cell service.
The internet was flat rate.
Every pundit on the planet claimed the internet would eventually become a metered service.
Instead phone service has become flat rate.
I do not want to predict precisely what will happen.
But I can predict what absolutely will not happen.
You will not get less value for more cost – atleast not for very long.
Because markets absolutely never work that what.
But the central premise of nearly all regulation is that absent government intervention free markets automatically turn rapidly into races to the bottom.
This is part of my rant about Roby’s assertion of “common sense” as a principle.
Ignoring that there is no definition of common sense. I think much of what others argue here lacks common sense – clearly that view is not shared, so there really is no “common sense”.
Regardless, it is true that many people confuse first order thinking with common sense.
The one thing we can guarantee is that first order thinking is always wrong.
Most everything has consequences the ripple through the world
When you drop a rock in a pond for an instant the rock drives the water down – leaving a hole in the water,. but very quickly the hole closes and you get ripples and reflections of ripples and on and on.
Dave, “You say that if people can charge for something that they will.”
Well once again I fail to communicate.
I am not saying they will. The “chicken little” NN supporters are saying this.
What I am saying is if companies WANT to charge more, government should not stand in their way. If company A wants to charge different for 1,2 and 3 scoop ice cream cones and company B wants to charge the same amount for each of these cones, then that should be their choice.
One only needs to look at cell phone companies to see what happens in an open market. Competition has driven down rates, has provided plans for basic voice/text to hours of data usage and those that include the device. Compare that to phone companies when the government was involved. Or cable companies when one company provided internet/ TV to service rates now with competition in the market.
Now the FCC is out, they should never have been in as they did not have legislative authority to oversee this. And the FTC needs to tread lightly on anything they do.
Absolutely companies want to charge more.
Further we want them to want to charge more.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith
Will they be able to charge more ? I do not know, neither do you, neither does anyone else.
But I do know something more – absolutely. That even if they manage to charge more, that gain will be short lived.
The profits of a business – from whatever source, absent force always eventually accrue to the consumer. The producers gain is temporary, the consumers gain is permanent.
That should be self evident. In a free market producers MUST constantly seek new means to profit. While standard of living – the benefit producers provide to consumers in return for profits, steadily rises.
You say that prices should be set by choice – sort of. The producer is free to decide what price they will accept the consumer what price they will pay. Absent reaching a price both will accept, no exchange takes place. Further other producers are free to “steal” sales from competitors, by delivering more value – either better goods or lower prices, ultimately both.
This is how the market works. Even unfree markets strive hard to work that way, they just do so inefficiently. The fundimental difference between a free market and a regulated market is efficiency. In a regulated market the burden of government increases cost without increasing value. The more regulated the less efficient. The less efficient the slower standard of living rises.
All regulations are not equally bad – but few if any justify their cost.
Purging NN eliminates regulation.
It unfortunately does not deliver a free market. But it does deliver a freer one.
I do not expect any significant change in the short run – why ?
Because if any of the changes the left fears were reasonable – they would have happened sometime during the preceding almost 50 years of the internet.
It is highly unlikely that some fear that did not materialize prior to 2015 will suddenly do so now.
But not impossible. That said if it does – ultimately standard of living will still rise, ultimately profits will spike and fall. It has always been that way.
There are very very few things that do not cost less in real dollars today than ever before.
Rather than seeking to regulate the internet, we should be seeking to free more of it.
Eliminate the ability of state and local government to deliver monopolies to ISP’s.
You’re being told that net neutrality promises “free and open” internet by the same people who promised “If you like your health plan, you can keep it.”
Think about that.
Dave, you need to pay closer attention to the conjunctions in the sentences. I said ” Their users will be impacted more than any others if charges are based on usage. ” ( Usage is priority as pointed out by you earlier). Please note I said IF charges, not WILL BE.
Start paying attention to what the conversation details out. Jay is the one having a cow because Trumps administration is removing government from free enterprise. I am the one pointing out what free enterorise SHOULD be able to do. Not what they will do.
Ron;
If I have inaccurately represented your position – I apologize.
I will note – not as an excuse – because I have on occasion gotten others positions wrong, that every response I make to someone is not inherently disagreement.
Sometimes someone says A implies B and I respond A implies C.
Both states can be true.
Further, I have frequently criticised small errors in otherwise correct arguments.
Maybe too often, but I do think where we really know them getting the details right often matters.
With respect to your ice cream analogy – yes, you are wrong.
The price of anything is what a willing buyer and willing seller agree to.
There is no objective measure of value. Every effort to come up with one has failed and often lead to bloodshed.
If I am an ice cream vendor and at noon you come to me and want a scoop – and my posted price is $1.55/scoop that is what you are paying.
If I am packing up at 5pm to head home and you come by and I have an opened contained of vanila with 3 scoops left and you offer me $1.55 for all three scoops – I will probably take it.
Even when prices are published – there is no such thing as a fixed price.
I buy things at auction all the time. I am a bottom feeder, I pay very low prices.
How ? Because unless I get the price I want I am prepared to walk away.
And if I wait long enough most everything I want goes for the price I want to pay.
I sell my own services as a consultant all the time.
Do you think I have a fixed hourly rate ? Not a chance.
Call me an ask if I will take a job – and my quoted rate will depend heavily on how busy I am.
I openly offer lower rates to clients who will let me do their work on my schedule, the clients that need work right away pay more and those that don’t pay less.
But here is a simple test of NN.
Do you think airlines should have to sell first class seats for the same price as coach ?
Because that is what NN is.
Dave”With respect to your ice cream analogy – yes, you are wrong.”
Black is really white.
The sky is green, not blue.
Ron;
The subjective theory of value – though touched on by Adam Smith, was not firmly established until the late 19th century. It is close to the last element added to classical economics
It occured roughly at the same time Marx pushed the labor theory of value.
The subjective theory of value was born with the recognition that decisions are made at the margins.
I make a big deal about the distinction between principles and values.
Principles are unfungible or atmost have very limited fungibility.
Principles are absolute or very nearly so.
Values compete.
SCOTUS is currently trying to determine the masterpeice cake case.
One of the flaws in the entire case – and in our law – is that as presented the case is purportedly about competing rights – it is not, it is about competing values. And government should absolutely never get in the middle of conflicts over values. There is no right answer to questions about values. You will weigh values differently than I – you will do so different from anyone else on the planet. We rarely kill each other over differences in values.
We resort to force only over principles – or things we think are principles.
And that is a pretty good test of whether something is a principle – are you prepared to kill or die over it ?
I have not said black is white, I have said that values are highly fungible.
The “value” of an ice cream cone is not securely fixed to anything.
The buyer and seller establish it on their own.
Dave “The “value” of an ice cream cone is not securely fixed to anything.
The buyer and seller establish it on their own.”
Again, I have to do better communicating. I write something, go back and read it, edit it to cut the length and remove critical parts. So here is what I probably left out.
When I said in the NN comment that I if I bought a 3 scoop cone and you bought a 1 scoop cone, we should not be paying the same.
(Follow up comment for clarification) In my neck of the woods, we have no vendor that has ice cream left at the end of the day they have to get rid of. They have freezers and the ice cream is left in the store to be sold tomorrow or the next day, whenever someone wants to buy it. They do not have to wholesale it out so they are selling it multiple scoops for the same price as single scoops at the end of each day. They have menus on the wall and those are semi permanent, so their prices are somewhat constant. They do not change daily.
So my position on the priority, usage or whatever the internet providers charge by should be up to them, not the government. If it cost 1 billion dollars to provide that service, they should be able to charge that 1 billion based on usage, priority or what ever or spread it equally among all their customers.
But remember, the poor person in the inner city that just has minimal service to be able to do homework, email and a few other things is going to pay more so the affluent upper class individual in the gated community can pay less for Netflex and other high gig downloads when Obama’s NN was in effect. This is what companies do. They cover their cost and then add profit. NN has no impact on that, just how their costs are distributed to customers.
Ron;
You are being too literal and that is actually my point.
You picked the ice cream Cone analogy, I didn’t.
I noted one possible way the price of a 3 scoop cone could be the same as a 1 scoop cone.
I can construct others – some might be more odd than others.
I will happily cede that the norm is 3 scoops is priced higher than 1.
But norms are not laws and regulations.
NN is law and regulation, it does not say “usually” 3 scoops costs more than 1.
It says 3 scopes MUST cost more than one.
Or more accurately the FCC is going to decide what and when you can and con not charge more fo.
Pricing in markets tends to be normalized – 3 scoops costs more than 1.
Tend is not the same as Must.
It is the rare that actually makes the market work.
In my counter example I presumed that the ice cream would go to waste if it was not sold.
The vendor had an incentive to discount the ice cream at the end of the day.
Does that happen every time ? Nope.
At the same time the vendor who sells the last bits of a tub of ice cream at a discount – has gotten a sale he would not have otherwise. Hase collected money he probably would not have otherwise.
He has reduced his waste. He has reduced his storage costs,
Even if the ice cream did nto go to waste – it would cost money to freeze it until the next time he could sell it.
I said before I buy at auction. Alot of what I buy is what Contractors have left at the end of a job.
The contractor can warehouse a pallet of shingles or half a dozen doors – hoping that he can use them on another project, and paying to store them in the meantime.
Or he can auction them. Get maybe .25/$ they he paid for them and not have to store them – possibly for years. Further the cost was already paid by the job they were purchased for.
It is typical for many materials to estimate the need will be 10% larger than the projected,
Contractors tend to order more than they need – because it costs ALOT of time and money to run out.
Value is subjective.
The most critical economic activity occurs at the margins – it is NOT the norm. But it is what determines success or failure.
Regardless, my key point is not about prices – it is about norms.
You should not and can not try to convert norms into laws and regulations.
90% of the time is not always. And the economy may actually fail or atleast stagnate if you pretend that the norm is a rule.
Which is another problem with common sense.
MAYBE it can drive our personal choices – if we screw up or if we fall outside the norms, we bear the costs, If on the otherhand we recognize when norms do not apply we can profit greatly.
Regardles the results effect us.
When we make “common sense” law, those instances that are outside the norms die, they become a loss.
I trust netflix to do what they think is best for netflix’s bottom line. Absolutely.
But that is not what is best for me.
If Netflix is still supporting NN they are one of few content providers who are.
Since NN took effect many of the big advocates for it have reversed.
NN’s primary effect is significantly disincentivizing innovation.
Alert, Alert. Alert. Bloviating BS From Dubious Dhlii
Numerous content providers against FCC rollback.
Almost all those disagree with your dumb assertion the rollback will aid innovation.
Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg:
“Today’s decision from the Federal Communications Commission to end net neutrality is disappointing and harmful. An open internet is critical for new ideas and economic opportunity — and internet providers shouldn’t be able to decide what people can see online or charge more for certain websites.”
Amazon Chief Technology Officer Werner Vogels:
“I am extremely disappointed in the FCC decision to remove the #NetNeutrality protections,” Vogels wrote on Twitter. “We’ll continue to work with our peers, partners and customers to find ways to ensure an open and fair internet that can continue to drive massive innovation.”
Microsoft Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith:
“The open internet benefits consumers, business & the entire economy,” Smith wrote. “That’s jeopardized by the FCC’s elimination of #netneutrality protections today.”
Reddit Co-Founder Alexis Ohanian:
“We cannot let this happen to our internet in the US,” Ohanian tweeted. “We must keep fighting for #NetNeutrality.”
Vimeo:
“It’s disheartening that the #FCC chose to ignore the public and approve a policy that benefits the few and powerful at the expense of creators, and the stories they work to tell,” the company posted on Twitter. “We look forward to challenging this misguided decision in court.
Google, developing its own ISP Google Fiber, a broadband Internet and TV broadband service, said: “The FCC’s net neutrality rules are working well for consumers, and we’re disappointed in the proposal released today,”
Jay;
Please list the COMPANIES that have formally stated RECENT support for NN.
Not various people within those companies. Unless they are formally speaking for the company – in some of your examples this is likely the case, but not all.
Generally when someone’s statement is reported as “the Founder of XXX” that is because they are speaking for themselves and the media wishes to conflate what they are saying with the position of the company.
Regardless, this is not an issue I really want to fight you over.
This “OMG something was just done that will bring appocolypse” crap that you and so many other spew is worthless garbage.
I doubt you actually know a specific thing that changed from 2014 to 2015, that has been reversed.
Content provider support for NN is far weaker than you are arguing – many Content providers grasp that NN impedes their own innovation and their own ability to deliver a better product.
Facebook and Google do not control network traffic outside their own borders.
Ultimately in the NN world – they will lose – because they can not pay ISP’s to provide them better service – NN makes that illegal. But when ISP’s also provide content – they will win the preformance battle against pure content providers in the NN environment – because if they treat all traffice neutrally – theirs will be faster and more reliable most of the time – because competing content providers have to traverse that part of the network that neither the content provider nor the ISP control before getting to where the ISP must treat it “equally”.
They have lost before the game starts and NN means there is nothing they can do about it.
Much is made of the fact that the Anti NN camp spent more than the Pro NN camp.
Of course they did – though content providers dwarf ISP’s – There is no ISP in the top 25 businesses in the country. Amazon, Microsoft, Google,. Facebook are all near the top of the largest companies in the world.
They did not spend alot of money to defend NN – because they are not stupid and they do not care. Killing NN is not going to hurt them.
Most of what they have spent and most of what they have said is PR – to make people like you believe they are the good guys and ISP’s are evil.
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3552
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/13/ajit-pai-wants-you-to-know-you-can-still-harlem-shake-after-net-neutrality-video/
—
Jay,
You gave a good list of highly qualified folks above (Amazon Chief Technology Officer, Facebook COO, Reddit Co-Founder, Microsoft Chief Legal Officer, Vimeo, Google) who speak in favor of Net Neutrality. But some people will have an idea lodged in their head (for example: “Free Markets are Good; Government Bad”) and they won’t be open to considering or exploring how the situation is different than competition for the washing machine market.
You are correct, Pat.
Some people are stuck with their orthodoxy, and are unable to think outside that box.
I don’t ascribe to absolutes when it comes to problem solving. Sometimes hybrid solutions work.
On this NN issue, I have a sense the solution is between the two points of view. But in this contentious environment we’re trapped in, that’s unlikely to happen.
“Some people are stuck with their orthodoxy, and are unable to think outside that box.”
Absolutely – anyone who thinks that the concept of net neutrality is a good idea, is unable to think outside the box.
Pretty much anytime anyone starts talking about equality – they are selling a very bad idea.
Nothing in the real world is or should be equal.
Anytime someone is saying government should use force to ensure equality,
You should think very very very seriously.
That is rarely a good idea.
While there is a strong Free market argument.
There is also a very good NN is an absolutely stupid idea.
All internet traffic IS NOT equal, and no sane person would ever want it to be.
The left frames NN as being about blocking.
Mostly it is not – though I would eliminate the FTC too, any content provider that was actually blocked would still today have a case to make before the FTC.
NN is actually about assuring that all internet traffic is created equally – that streaming video, voice, email, p2p, web browsing all move from one end of the internet to the other exactly the same. This is abject stupidity – as anyone who has sat while Netflix stalled in the middle of a moving and popped up loading should know.
All traffic is not and should not be equal.
In the real world while Netflix has repeatedly publicly spoken out in favor of NN.
When it came to actual discusions of NN regulations, Netflix opposed them all.
There is also a schism between Netflix’s CEO who speaks in favor of NN,
and its board and it actual actions – which oppose it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2015/04/17/netflix-still-cant-make-up-its-mind-about-net-neutrality/#265b76406f70
I have often wondered why at “All you can Eat Buffet”, they don’t weigh you you before and after, to determine your tab. (Some people do take advantage.)
Too easy to scam.
Go in with bricks in your pockets.
Dump them before cashing out.
(Would you get a rebate if you weighed less than on entering 😊 )
Why might a business not want to treat all of its customers like theives – just because a few might be ?
Net Neutrality tried to fix a problem that did not exist. Now that Facebook and Netflix are the big monsters of their particular platforms, unnecessary regulations actually benefit them by making it more burdensome for new, smaller, upstarts to undercut them. I put no value to their endorsement of net neutrality.
Mike Hatcher
I think in this case the FCC was preventing more crony capitalism we are about to see unfold. I truly hope some upstarts are able to compete with the large ISPs, many of which have already made closed door deals outside of the “communication industry,” but I think the going just got tougher for everyone except the cronies.
We have problems with ISP’s – in much of the country there really is not a free market for ISP’s
That problem is primarily a result of crony capitalism at the state and local level.
You want my agreement we should do something about that – you got it.
But NN was not an answer to that problem. It was the creation of a massive problem with would have chocked the internet.
It was always an abysmally bad idea rooted in warm and fuzzy slogans.
“To each according to his need, from each according to his ability”
Karl Marx
A wonderful sounding sentiment.
The bloofiest political and economic system ever conceived by far.
Hey, while we are at it, lets fight for restaurant neutrality, it is just down right prejudicial for restaurants to offer only Italian food, or Chinese food. A restaurant should have to serve all foods equally because I sure hate having to drive 3 blocks to get my Tabouli. That costs me time and gas when the Taco truck outside my office should be compelled by government to stock it.
Mike Hatcher
Save your nickels and bring back the Automat. It will provide an array of different ethnic foods at variable prices and seating for people with questionable life styles to gather
https://www.eater.com/2015/9/16/9334659/automat-eatsa-history-future
Good answer dduck12
Mike Hatcher
My son worked on this film. Great documentary about the days of sandwich neutrality…..
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4554690/
Nice link.
@Priscilla. Me too re: Franken and Menendez.
Now, to more important matters: This commenting system sucks. Who knows if you are replying to whomever and to which comment. I compliment someone and it winds up under someone else’s comment that I don’t agree with and miles away. Why can’t there be a REPLY button under each comment (some comments have none) and the reply actually be where you thought it would be. Sorry, just had enough sex/misconduct s—- for a while.
Priscilla, If your son worked on “Automat”, I ill look forward to seeing it. Of course, I also want to see Mel Brooks.
Many people think the Net Neutrality vote was between slow government regulation that was archaic and a hindrance on one hand, and a “Free Market” that sparks innovation on the other hand. I say that is naïve. Dangerously naïve. It is a “Crony Market” and a “Corrupt Market” of powerful monopolies with ties you don’t want to hear about.
The Information Super Highway is not the same as widgets in the marketplace. And the Ma Bell analogy doesn’t apply either.
It’s like we just gave our roads and highways to different mafia organizations (highways to the Italian Mafia, rural roads to the Lebanese Mafia, urban boulevards to the Russian Mafia…) and we think little Joe Blow and Suzie Q. Public are going to build their own roads? I really hope I’m wrong. We will see. But it looks like more crooked consolidation to me. Ajit or whatever his name is, was a Verizon lawyer who wormed his way into the FCC, as far as I can see.
Oh yeah, Free Markets will take care of everything. Supply and Demand. Oh you poor naïve souls. Do you not see the Crony Capitalism all around you? Do you not see what people with a little bit of power do? You must be watching the Hallmark Channel and thinking everything is so sweet….
People think thoughts
It’s quite alarming
Weinstein probably thought
he was actually charming
Pat, in my opinion I can assume every statement that you made is true, even the ones you describe as speculative and I can still come up with the same answer. Ok, given: There are a few Mafia style entities that control the entire internet highway. (I would not know, I admit I have no technical knowledge of these things) and this net neutrality FCC regulation stopped them in their tracks? Not a law from congress, just that bureaucratic rule, and they had no way to circumvent, bribe, or otherwise continue to pursue whatever evil objectives they had had in mind? Let me put my definition to Crony Capitalism, businesses working with government for their own enrichment, which I believe happens all the time. Had this rule stayed in place, or if it were to return, those mafia organizations would keep doing whatever they wanted to do and simply have to occasionally payoff the government (in the form of fines and settlements) whenever the government “sanctioned” them for breaking said rule. Just another price of doing business, would not change a thing, even if your premise is correct.
Mike Hatcher
MH,
Your point is well taken. Gov’t regs are not going to stop every greedy wolf from underhanded activities. But often the regulations and courts and the rule of law are a deterrent against abuses.
Verizon, Comcast, and other well-connected ISPs have too much to gain from this change. Will innovations continue? I’m sure they will. Unfortunately we’re going to see some digital “toll booths” popping up! Free Market worshippers will say “just take your business someplace else…” I hope that’s possible. I worry new hurdles will be put in place to make it virtually impossible for new players to emerge. Again I hope I’m wrong about that.
Lets presume that Verizon would block Netflix if it could.
Lets presume that staring tomorow they do so.
As these cartoons from the left posit – tomorow when you go to netflix.com a screen pops up saying you have to buy an additonal service from your ISP to access netflix.
Basically lets assume all the most dire predictions of the left take place.
Lets go one step further, and assume government and the FCC are completely owned and do nothing.
How long do you think this would last ?
How long will it take for you to give your ISP an earful ?
How bad will the press be ?
How big will the backlash be ?
How fast do you think customers will move to whatever ISP commits to not blocking ?
I keep trying to get everyone here to get past the first order effects.
Instead of saying If govenrment does not prevent X from happening the world will come to an end, ask if X actually happened – what would likely occur next ?
I think one of the problems with the left is that they are mostly sheep. They do not act without massive concensus and do not easily imagine that the rest of us will act without consulting our peers. That those actions – even from a small set of us will likely be very bad for those we act in opposition to.
Trump would be in deep trouble if 10% of the wealthy democrats who make use of his businesses boycotted him.
Once 5G broadband is the standard, the whole net neutrality thing will be moot, and monopolies like Comcast will likely be done.
“Once 5G broadband is the standard, the whole net neutrality thing will be moot, and monopolies like Comcast will likely be done.”
I hope you are correct. I find it difficult to imagine Comcast, Verizon, and the other large players will let go of their market share without re-writing the rules, which I think the latest vote was preparation for.
Wonderful technology may brighten our future, but that will have negligable effect on purported bad behavior.
The end of NN will be a non-issue – because NN was a solution to a problem that does not exist, and if it did would self correct.
The simplest proof would be to assume that the repeal of NN has the worst effects predicted on Day one. What would happen next ?
What would not happen is people sitting idly by and paying whatever was demanded of them.
The left seems to beleive that absent competition ordinarly people would pay $100 for a burger at McD’s.
The price of anything is what a willing buyer and willing sellor agree to.
When the buyer will not buy – there is no sale and the sellor loses their profits and eats their cost.
Many things in economics are called theories – in science evolution is called a theory.
Supple and demand is called a LAW. it is immutable.
If you reduce the price of something more people will try to buy it.
If you increase the price fewer will.
Even if you had an absolute monopoly you still can not charge whatever you want.
Two things will always stop price increases:
1). with each increase fewer people buy Most products are sold at the profit maximizing price – which is very close to the lowest profitable price you can sell at.
2). even if you have a monopoly – if profits are high enough you will rapidly have competition.
Pat- ““Once 5G broadband is the standard, the whole net neutrality thing will be moot, ”
Why? K
It is extremely rare for technology to solve a corruption problem in the market.
That does not mean those problems are common or permanent.
As noted the fears of the left can be refuted by simply assuming the predictions are true and asking “and what happens next ?”
What we know does NOT happen is people quietly pay more.
The roads analogy is poor – or better put demonstrates why private roads would likely work better than public ones.
Contra the left the government role in the internet has always been limited.
The government has NEVER built, owned of controller the “roads and bridges” of the internet – atleast not prior to 2015.
While the roads and bridges of the internet did not work perfectly befor NN – they worked incredibly well and the rate of improvement was phenomenal.
If our actual roads and bridges improved athe the same rate we would all be traveling at Mach 10.
You say Free markets wont work – but they already have. The interent is the most free market the world has ever seen.
The free market has given you this absolutely incredible thing that you have grown to value enormously and now ONLY because you have grown to value it enormously you are unwilling to trust the very forces that created it in the first place to continue to deliver.
Pat,
Crony capitalism means business buying government.
If there is no regulation – there is no crony capitalism.
You need not hope you are wrong – you are, past history proves it.
This is almost a non change – we did nto have NN prior to 2015.
I am not actually sure that any substantial NN regulations ever took effect – it takes years to develop regulations. NN has been tied up in court since 2015.
To a large extent the FCC’s decision is not a “repeal”, it is not a “change” it is just a decision not to make stupid changes in the future.
“California lawyer Lisa Bloom’s efforts included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill.”
Lisa Bloom = Gloria Allred’s daughter…apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Soliciting fake Trump accusers with hundreds of thousands in cash.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365068-exclusive-prominent-lawyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers
So?
Soliciting fake accusers is good with you, duck?
It is OK with me.
It is also OK with me never to trust the journalists and outlets who do so again,
and to decrease my trust of stories that were bought.
@Priscilla. So.
Are they fake do you know that for a fact. I don’t, but if they are, no I then say it is deplorable. There are probably enough real cases of some kind of real “abuse”, and those ladies and gents need to be heard if they wish. Look at all the women that were laughed at by Dems/Hillary.
We do not “know” any of these accusations are True – not of Trump, not of others.
We choose what we beleive.
We beleive because there are many accusers.
We beleive because we beleive the press vetted these people carefully.
We beleive because we beleive these people have nothing to gain and alot to lose by coming forward.
Change those and we are likely to reduce our beleif.
And that is exactly as it should be.
If they have actual evidence of abuse,dduck, I’m willing to change my opinion.
But when someone comes forward only after partisan donors offer hundreds of thousand of dollars, offer to pay off mortgages, and even then ~ even then! ~ these women want more $$, I don’t find their accusations even remotely credible.
I think that Franken should stay in the Senate, I’ve said that all along. He should face the voters. I thought that Moore should face the voters…he did, and they took him down.
Same with Trump. If there credible accusations, let’s hear them. None of this “Oh, when I was in a beauty contest, walking around in my bikini, he looked at my butt” BS. If there was abuse, they should be heard. But if they’re in this for the money that Soros is willing to pay, then they should be able to make a damn good case.
Cash wasn’t to fabricate or change their stories, but to help insulate them from financial harassment.
Why do you have a problem with that? You rather they skulked away when the Trumpanzee bullies surface, and Schlump tries to intimidate them with legal threats?
Most of us tend to have much less confidence in a story that was bought.
And that is precisely what the response should be.
It sounds like these payments do not matter to you. That is OK.
But they do to others – and that is OK too.
The left likes to make facts into opinions and opinions into facts.
I beleive these women – that is an opinion, a judgement call. it is not a fact. I do not have the information necescary to establish it as a fact. Further we are not in a court of law – so my standard of beleif can be lower – much lower. But whether the story was paid for can reduce my beleif.
“Most of us tend to have much less confidence in a story that was bought.”
It appears the women refused the money. That should give even more credence to them.
I think that we are fast reaching a point at which we need to discount any evidence-free, he said/she said accusations that involve abuse that took place more than 20 years in the past, unless that abuse involved children or minors below the age of consent.
I’m sorry, but this business of grown women in their 40’s, 50’s and even 60’s, claiming that someone groped them when they were in their 20’s, with zero evidence, has got to stop. And accusations should be judged on merit, not quantity. The only Franken accuser who presented evidence was the first one (Jay’s favorite Maxim model) and then we got the pile on.
It’s not that I don’t believe that Franken groped these women during photo ops…it’s just that I don’t think that something that wasn’t important enough to mention for 8 or 10 years, and even now is creepy, not criminal, is worth forcing him out of office.
Let him make his case, and face the voters. Although, he’s apparently decided that he will leave at the end of the year. I hope he changes his mind and toughs it out. If Minnesota wants a creep to represent them in the Senate, that’s their call. Heck, my state has Bob Menendez, who has been very credibly accused, in court, of sex with underage prostitutes, as young as 13. The Democrats have been pretty silent about him. Kirsten Gillibrand, where are you?
I keep making the same argument.
Law, government, the use of force – require clear bright lines – that is why we have a statute od limitations.
Outside of govenrment the lines get drawn by each of us individually.
As a rule of thumb we giver older accusations less weight than newer ones.
I beleive the allegations against Moore. Possibly because I really dislike Moore, badly enough that I wanted Jones to beat him – though I did not expect that.
At the same time I am troubled that all the allegations against more are antique.
The people who do what Moore is alleged to have done – do not stop for 30 years.
Further though I beleive the allegations against Moore – I do not beleive the details of anyone’s recollections from 40 years ago.
Many of the allegations against Moore could go from bad dating to rape based on details I am reluctant to trust over that great a time.
BUT that is my personal assessment.
Priscilla is free to feel 40 year old allegations should be ignored and
And so long as govenrment is not involved – we can all make our own choices, and act according to them.
We do not need or want “bright lines” because each of use makes choices differently.
Priscilla, surprise surprise – I fully agree with your overall assessment (with reservation on the initial Franken charge, which I believe was politically motivated and abetted).
Jay, Hell is freezing over! 😈
I have no problem with this.
I also have no problem with people deciding not to beleive stories that were bought and paid for and not to trust outlets that are buying stories.
I was very worried that the Nelson machinations in Alabama would give Moore a win – and they might have.
What the press sells is integrity. This is part of what the left does not get and why the “fake news” meme is so powerful.
Trump can afford to be caught in some errors, even lies.
Politicians primary product is not trust.
But the media’s is. A journalist who is not credible has significantly diminished their value.
I beleive most of the allegations against Trump – though I try to put them in context – SOME actions that are legitimate as a Pagent producer are not s an NPR announcer.
Regardless this story poisons the well with respect to all Trump accusations.
It also makes the media even less beleivable on other issues.
We know as an example that alot of the pro-clinton, anti-trump stuff in the media, alot of the “leaks” were stories Fusion GPS paid journalists to write.
Even some of the anti-clinton stories were actually bought and paid for by Fusion GPS
When Fusion saw that some story harmful to clinton was going to break, they delivered the story to a friendly journalist who spun the story in the most favorable way possible.
When the news is bought – our trust is diminished – and that is a good thing.
That is how markets work.
They do not deliver perfection. But they do a pretty good job of allowing you to compare how rotten each vendors apples are.
@Priscilla. Me too re: Franken and Menendez.
Now, to more important matters: This commenting system sucks. Who knows if you are replying to whomever and to which comment. I compliment someone and it winds up under someone else’s comment that I don’t agree with and miles away. Why can’t there be a REPLY button under each comment (some comments have none) and the reply actually be where you thought it would be. Sorry, just had enough sex/misconduct s—- for a while.
Lies lies and more lies.
They’re like gift wrapping paper for all things tRUMP
So ?
Trump is hyperbolic. Since when is that news.
I think I support the current Tax cut.
I do not think as Trump says that is the greatest tax cut ever or whatever other hyperbolee he used to describe it.
There ya go again, distorting the situation with inaccurate definition.
Hyperbole: “exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.”
Are you naive or dumb enough not to be able to distinguish hyperbole from bullshit in the context it’s being used? You can excuse an insecure Buffoon from exaggerating the size of his penis in a bar, but not a business from distorting so egregiously it’s worth to a reputable trade and financial institution like Crain.
Your judgement is worth 1/10th of a cent. Hyperbole or fact?
The only people who take Trump literally are left wing nuts.
When Trump says we are going to have the best greatest healthcare ever, or the FBI is going to be cleaned up to be made the best greatest FBI ever or Or that this is the greatest tax reform ever
Do you take any of those to be literally true.
Most of us understand he means – we are going to take something bad and make it less bad.
But that does not sound inspiring in a speach or Tweet.
BTW Obama did pretty much exactly the same thing – the difference being his language was cultivated to target differnet people that Trump’s.
One of my pet theories about top politicians – particularly presidents is that their persona is a deliberate creation.
I think that GWB;s texas twang and style even his mangling of the language were a deliberate choice. I think Bill Clinton polished his particular Southern appeal.
I think Obama’s “style” was crafted and targetted. And I think the same is true of Trump.
What bothers you about his speach is what appeals to the voters that won him this election.
Anyway, his style does not appeal to me.
But I am not going to play this stupid game that a style I do not like equates with incompetence or deciept.
Ad Hominem is still not argument.
So lets address your question directly.
Nearly all the statements of Trumps you whigg out over are only false if taken litterally.
If you take them figuratively most, possibly all are true.
Neither Clinton nor Obama would hold up to the scruntiny you subject Trump to.
Further Trump’s “hyperbolee”: is effective. It gets a knee jerk reaction from the media, you and the left. Nearly always one that makes you look bad.
Trump’s credibility has taken a hit as a result of the attacks of the media and the left.
But the credibility of the media and the left has tanked.
Trump’s credibility will recover as the economy strenghtens
Yours will not.
There are alot of democrats celebrating right now because they think that they are going to win big in 2018.
It the election was held today – maybe, I do not know.
But it is not being held today.
It is being held almost a year from now.
If Mueller is able to survive and manage the impossible and connect Trump to Russian Collusion, this farce is over. Trump will resign or be impeached.
But that is not possible.
What is far more likely is this will die, and if it does not it will look more and more like a partisan witch hunt. This is not like the GOP congressional investigations – those had a point or actual substance. What happened in the IRS is a fact, the DOJ failed to pursue it and absent that there might not have been the evidence for a conviction, but none but loons think what happened was nto wrong. The same with Benghazi, and the Clinton’s email mess.
Every investigation into the Obama administration or clinton had a real underlying basis.
Something real and bad actually occured.- indisputable.
Exactly who did what might not have been clear – but that it was done was crystal clear.
The indisputeable fact underlying the left’s investigations is that Trump unecpectedly won.
That is all.
In a year – if Mueller is still investigating, it is likely he will look worse than today.
It is highly unlikely that current investigations are going to positively factor for democrats in 2018.
You still do not understand that when you make accusations, you bet yourself against those you accuse. There will be only one winner. If you do not “get Trump” you are toast.
That is a pretty good test of whether the investigation is partisan or not.
If it finds nothing – is everyone going to say Mueller did a good job and delivered the truth.
That is the outcome of a non-partisan investigation.
Or are there going to be recriminations ?
Is one side unlikely to beleive the results ?
That is the sign of a partisan investigation.
When Starr was done with Clinton, no one doubted the Truth of what Starr said.
We debated whether that justified impeachment.
We doubt Mueller’s truth already and he has done little.
If the economy tanks – republicans will get shellacked.
If it does not – democratic hopes of a takeover of any part of congress as gone.
You can probably keep this up another 11 months – but you are already losing voters.
Soemthing like 63% of people beleive Mueller’s investigation is tainted.
See what happens when men dress provocatively 😊
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/365085-kansas-dem-drops-out-of-house-race-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations
Full “Disclosure”, I was not cornered by anyone looking like Demi, when I was single.
I keep bringing up common sense in my support of candidates. I also get ridiculed as common sense does not seem to be important these days . Idiology overrules common sense these days. But this is what happens when that happens. Note who is recommending nominees.( toward end of article)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-judicial-nominee-apos-t-074705273.html
My problem with the “common sense” argument is that it is without meaning.
Common sense is undefined. And to the extent it means anything it means looking solely at the first order effects.
I saw the video of that judicial candidates interview before the senate.
He should be toast.
I have argued more cases than he has, and probably taken more depositions.
I know the rules of civil procedure,
I know what a motion in liminee is.
I would also note this guy is a senior manager of some kind at the FEC.
He is not qualified for that role based on this interview.
At the same time I do not think half the judges on the local court of common pleas are as qualified as this guy.
The standard of our judiciary is abysmal.
It is well know that dead weight and incompitent partners in local law firms are pushed into the local judiciary to get them out of the business.
There are a few very good local judges. But most of them are poor.
Half the judges locally do not know or care what “ex parte” means. It is a violation of the ABA’s and judiciaries rules of ethics and it is common place.
Dave, Thank you, Thank you Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“My problem with the “common sense” argument is that it is without meaning. Common sense is undefined..”
This is why America in many respects is so screwed up today.
Common sense used to be like pornography. Potter Stewart, in a SCOTUS decision stated:
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it”
Common sense is hard to define (much like pornography in this decision). But I know it when I see it. Our parents and grand parents knew it and practiced it when making decisions. America became strong based on common sense decisions and actions.
But I know signs of lack of common sense, and it is much more prevalent today than ever before. Sending someone to a judicial confirmation hearing lacking any legal knowledge is a complete lack of common sense. Who the hell vetted this guy?
Maybe it is how I was raised compared to your youth where I see things that do not compute.
The Potter Stewart reference is perfect.
We can make choices in our own lives using an ‘I will know it when I see it standard”.
We can not make choices for others on that basis.
The very fact that the choice came before Potter Stewart, meant that everyone – including your parents and grand parents did NOT “know it when they saw it”.
I can define the scope of government with a few bright line hard fast rules.
We will have some issues that court must sort out over which side of the line something is, because we can not define even bright lines perfectly,
But those will be rare.
Everything that falls outside of the scope of government falls into the realm of “common sense”. Not law.
You make your choices. If you follow convention – you are unlikely to fail.
You are also not going to do incredibly well.
Improvement to society, to standard of living, occurs OUTSIDE what is common sense.
But everyone on the outside does not succeed and change the world – most fail.
The FEC ALJ that was sent to the Senate for confirmation hearing is a fiasco we both agree on.
I am not entirely willing to preclude someone from his background from being a federal judge.
It appears he did have an important legal and judicial role at FEC.
Still he knew his own weeknesses and should have been prepared for them.
How you grew up matters alot.
I have noted that I came from many generations of business people on both sides of my family.
Taking calculated risks is bread into me. Working hard for something in the future is bread in.
My wife’s father worked for RCA for many years.
WE have radically different views on employment and employees.
I am more inclined than she to hire someone else to do something I do not want to do.
She feels guilty when she hires someone to do a job she would rather not do.
I fell I am doing something good for both me and that person.
I “buy” other peoples labor the same way I do anything else – I want to pay the least possible.
When I can get her to hire someone to do something she does not want to – she overpays them – because she has great sympathy for “working people”.
If I pay someone more than I have to – I am harming myself, and them and others.
IF I pay more than I have to – that is something else I can not do.
That might be someone else I can not hire.
For most of my life I have had to make hiring and firing decisions.
I understand that when I hire someone – I will likely have to fire them at a later time.
I may do so because they can not do the job.
I may do so because I have failed and the business can not afford them.
I may do so because they no longer are of value to the business.
I may do so because if I do not fire a few people everyone will lose their jobs later.
I have also learned that what I pay someone is a significant factor in when and whether I later have to fire them.
If I am running 20K a month short on a payroll for 50 people, firing the guy making 7.50/hr is going to do absolutely nothing. Firing the one making 120K/year gets me half way to breaking even.
Generally I need the more skilled people more than the less skilled people.
At the same time trainign the guy who gets the mail, gases the cars and runs errands is just as hard as training a new professional.
I amy keep the guy at 7.50 because firing him does nto make a dent in my problem.
If I need to cut back and I have two well compensated people – and I only need one.
Many factors might decide which I keep – one of those might be who is paid more.
I have fired one person and kept another because the one I kept cost less.
Most people are completely unfamiliar with these decisions.
You want to make them by “common sense”.
That is not how they are made.
Background does matter.
I have spent much of my life deeply involved in the types of decisions that must be made,
decisions that effect others and their lives.
Most people do not have that experience.
Most people do not want that experience.
But they do think they can determine how those decisions should be made.
That is why common sense is a poor idea.
I will also tell you from experience, that the last people you want making these types of decisions are ordinary employees.
However evil you think employers are – other employees are far more brutal.
#PresidentPooPoo Friends at DOJ Undermining Mueller Investigation?
Did you read the tweet that you linked ?
It is a letter from the DOJ IG to congress.
I have no idea what the law is regarding the DOJ IG releasing these texts.
From what I can tell there is nothing in them that is classified.
I beleive that government should keep as few secrets as possible.
That Clinton’s Sec State emails belong to the public,
That Strzok texts on a govenrment phone belong to the public.
While I think that a modicum of thought is necescary before a government employee decides on their own what is to be made public.
Everything does not need reviewed by the whitehouse before being released.
I think the only thing the executive branch can deny congress is the work directly associated with providing advice to the president.
Plus, the IG is an Obama appointee. And does not take kindly to being called a “friend of Poo Poo.”
More Nonsense From The Nutso Party In Power
Jay are you suffering from dementia or just a brain fart blocking your thinking?
“More Nonsense From The Nutso Party In Power”
Did you forget Obama and his ban on “Radical Islamist” and Radical Islam”.
You need to get checked out.
Ron, I’m making an appointment to have my mental facilities checked.
I’m making one for you too, you may need it more. You don’t seem able to factor in the concept that two wrongs don’t make a right. Or to balance the weights of two wrongs.
I was highly critical of Obama’s refusal to use those terms to describe Muslim terrorists. As I was highly critical of him in general over his Middle East policies. Doubly so of the Iran deal, just a postponement of Iran’s eventual nuclear ambitions.
But to equate Obama’s censorship with the current Schlump administration ban of words is (fill in your favorite pejorativefor for Dumb). The first was stupid; the second stupider.
I didn’t like the Obama presidency on many levels – but this present one is 10-Times worse.
Jay “I didn’t like the Obama presidency on many levels – but this present one is 10-Times worse.”
I have NEVER said I support TRUMP!!!! But what I am doing is giving reasons why some things may be what they are and not something negative.
I think Trump is a Northeastern NY asshole. He is everything I dislike in an individual. I think he is a disgrace in the way he has treated women in the past, the same as Clinton was a disgrace in the way he treated women. I have no doubts he will be a one term president, either by choice or by vote.
BUT I am not going to sit in front of my computer all day long or have some program running that scans for “trump”, read all those and then post anything that appears to be negative about him just because of my views about him.
You want him out of office. TELL US HOW! There are not many options until 2020.
What good is constant bombarding us with anti trump crap doing until you tell us how to use it to get him removed! Most of us have already read much of what you post and if we wanted to comment, we most likely would have already done that.
—-
Has Franken or Weinstein claimed that those he forcibly kissed were hanging out under the mistletoe ?
I am aware of only a tiny portion of these #metoo allegations that I think might have been consensual or poor dating skills.
Almost the only people who think that those fired were acting consensually, are the people fired.
Ron brought up Potter Stewart – and I noted that government is about bright lines,
“I know it when I see it” standards are for outside of government.
I have no problem with an “I know it when I see it” “common sense” standard being used to fire people over sexual harrassment.
I absolutely oppose it being used to prosecute someone for a crime.
Silence to tRUMP idiocy is idiotic complicity with tRUMP idiocy.
If the tRUMP posts annoy you, just skip them.
If you want, I’ll alert you to tRUMP content with this symbol at the top 🤬
I enjoy your Trump posts.
Further you are a canary in the coal mine. So long as you are ranting about meaningless nonsense, I can be sure nothing actually important is happening.
There is a fundamental difference.
Obama directed our law enforcement and intelligence community not to call terrorism terrorism.
He told them not to do their job.
Further he told them to stricken any reference to islam or muslim from acts that were performed by people motivated by islam. Maybe bad islam, but islam nonetheless.
If this story is true – which itself is a question that has not been answered,
Trump is asking CDC not to talk about things than have nothing to do with the CDC’s budget.
Obama was asking agencies to NOT do their job.
Trump is asking them to ONLY do their job.
I flip flopped the Santa and the Brain Specialist links, Ron.
Sants should have been at bottom.
brain Specialist here, in answer to Your question about getting rid of Defective Donald before 2020. Mental defect would be legitimate reason.
Jay, I think there are 15 cabinets in the federal govt. (Did not verify that #). If so, according to 25th amendmernt, then 8 members must agree that mental capacity is a danger to country. How do we get them to certify that?
The majority of the Cabinet can make Pence acting president for about 4 days.
So long as Trump choses to fight their determination, 2/3 of BOTH houses must vote to remove him.
In the event the removal is contested the 25th Amendment is a HARDER way to remove the president.
If and Only if there is a real and obvious actual disability that prevents the president from doing his job, the 25th amendment provides a faster means to remove a president.
The only instance I think this ever might have applied to was Wilson after his stroke.
Jay, for a more debatable response to your post. Lets look at a few words that was banned. I did not review them all, but I could and respond more if needed later.
***”Entitlement”—There are deficit hawks (yes a few in congress) that will look to certain “entitlement” programs and want to cut spending. If the CDC needs money for say vaccinations of poor women of child bearing years in inner cities and they called that an entitlement, what do you think some extreme right house members will do to that program.
***”Transgender”—What is Ted Cruz’s position going to be on providing any funds for transgender individuals?How about Mark Meadows from NC or Mo Brooks from AL. Put a target on that program because they will have their guns locked and loaded.
***”Fetus”— Here is one for the left. Lets say they provide money for some program like fighting the Zika virus and in that program they talk about a fetus at 30 weeks in that program and the viability of that fetus if provided some health protection, what does that do to the liberals that argue for abortion rights and try to say a fetus is not a “living individual”. Is it not best to avoid that confrontation if they want money?
***”Vulnerable” How is vulnerable defined? Is one mans definition the same as another mans definition? The United States Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the scope of the government’s responsibility is limited in this regard. Mainstream political discourse has historically been at odds over vulnerability for years. This falls into the same category somewhat as “entitlement”.
When we did budgets at the hospital, there were certain buzz words we never used in our documents because anything associated with those expenditures were immediately cut. For instance, years ago we used the American Hospital Association chart of accounts and one of their categories was “Travel and Education”. Provide “travel” to the conservative furniture and textile CEO’s and they immediately said to cut that out of the budget. It was change to “Employee development expenses” in anything that went to the board and was never questioned.
Here again, common sense tells individuals to provide information in a manner that avoids political opposition whenever possible. I think that is what is happening here, but Trump haters will continue hating and find fault with something that might have a good reason fro happening.
Ron,
ProPublica is not high on my credible list.
But assuming this is correct – we are still talking about asking that budget documents be about the CDC BUDGET.
CDC budget documents should talk about things the CDC needs money for.
Is Transgender a disease ?
Is pregnancy a disease ? Is abortion a Disease ?
Does every federal agency have to spend money on ever cause in existance ?
I beleive the US military just rolled back its assessment of Global Warming .
Whatever you beleive about CAGW – it is outside the domain of the department of defense.
Dave, do you have to nit pick every comment people make.
Transgender, pregnant women, fetus may not be diseases, but diseases are associated with these people/words/conditions/nouns. The CDC is charged with addressing diseases for all groups/individuals/conditions. When they need money and want to request funding to cover those diseases/conditions/issues/research projects, they don’t need words that are a politically hot potato creating distractions in the real debate on funding or not funding.
I do sometimes nit pick.
I do not think this is one of those.
I do not think most of those words are necescary in a CDC budget.
Pick a different agency and their might be an argument.
A budget is not a political document – or it should not be.
If there is a compelling reason to use some “banned word” the CDC can make that argument for that specific case.
But I expect that would be rare.
I would also note that such uses work both ways.
If the CDC references a politically charged word outside of their domain, they likely create a war in congress. whether the right or left loses – the CDC will lose.
If the CDC is studying sexually transmitted diseases, I would expect as part of the norm that would include those specific to a community or differences from one community to another.
I do not think they need to call attention to that.
By putting it outfront they risk being told there are specific communities they can not look into.
RonP: Good common sense comment.
None of these words have something to do with CDC and its budget.
Presuming the pro-publica story is correct,
what is wrong with the rest ?
According to your post this is with respect to budget documents.
None of these words/phrases have any bearing on the budget.
And frankly they have little bearing on CDC.
There is so much in this that sometimes you forget many of the details.
Several years ago FBI Special Agent, Robyn Gritz accused Andrew McCabe and several other top FBI agents of sex discrimination.
In 2014 Flynn provided a statement supporting Gritz, and an offer to testify in her behalf.
The investigation of Flynn was subsequently driven by McCabe.
This is a huge conflict of interests.
https://www.circa.com/story/2017/08/30/politics/former-fbi-agent-battling-deputy-director-mccabe-said-there-is-a-cancer-inside-the-fbi
.
There appear to be several “leaks” from inside the FBI that have not been well reported, concerning McCabe, Flynn and Trump.
“McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: “Fuck Flynn and then we Fuck Trump,” according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A scattered few did not.”
Sounds like a modern version of the language you would have heard at an FBI meeting about Al Capone, or John Gotti.
To which the proper public response is “Go Get Them, Guys.”
That would have been a mistake, though one likely to be made.
Regardless, targetting someone for criminal prosecution because they are politically intolerable is criminal.
Targetting someone for criminal prosecution because you have good reason to beleive they have committed a crime is the job of the FBI.
There is ample and growing evidence that McCabe and others at the top of the FBI targeted Flynn and Trump for personal and political reasons, not for law enforcement reasons.
If an FBI agent’s brother had his leg broken by Gotti – that would be a conflict of interests that would bar them from the investigation, and certainly from initiating an investigation.
McCabe was required to remove himself from the Clinton, Flynn and Trump investigations.
Sessions removed himself with far less basis.
Uh, no, it sounds like conspiracy to commit treason. Or at the very least, the beginnings of a police state.
To which the proper response is, “Mr. McCabe, you are under arrest.”
But, therein lies the problem of the so-called deep-state. No effective way to police mutinous appointees, if they themselves are the police.
I think it is time for a separate SC investigation.
To investigate the use of the machinery of the executive for political gain.
That would cover the IC, FBI,. and DOJ.
I think the SC should be a State AG with a strong prosecutorial record – particularly in public corruption. Regardless, it should be someone with no ties to washington.
I beleive that the entire staff should be made of people from outside of washington – or atleast outside the upper tiers of any prior administration.
I think we can find plenty of capable investigars and attorney’s who have little or no connection to washington.
QUESTION: Can The Brainless Be Tested By A Brain Soecialist?
https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/07/donald-trump-brain-specialist-disease/
Jay, interesting article. This is why I commented I think we need to amend the qualifications to be president to an age of one day prior to the 61st birthday. The changes in RR speech patterns have been identified now through reviews of his past comments.
But now that he is in office, how do we remove him before the next election?
And the last comment about compulsive retweeting can be a sign of mental disintegration, we have a problem here at TNM. There is a lot of that happening here.
Exactly why we should never give either you or them power.
We do not just go arround testing people – because we want to.
If you want testing for degernative conditions as part of the requirements for a president.
Amend the constitution.
Reqgardless dementia either proceeds rapidly or slowly.
If Trump has a rapid form, it will not take long before it is evident to everyone.
If it is slow it could take another decade before it impairs him sufficient to be unable to be president.
You are worried about a problem that will solve itself.
If turning over NN is innocuous, why are so many state governments (elected by the people) suing to keep it?
Jay, I could give a “F” about open internet. I grew up paying for long distance phone calls and survived, so too will anyone who has to pay more for their Netflex fix.
I just wish as much attention was paid to the debt and entitlement liabilities we are leaving future generations that is going to impact economic quality of life as we are to selfish issues like NN and its impact on our self interests.
But with this being an era of “ME” who cares about our coming generation?
Because progressives are brain dead about the law. That is nothing new.
I expect most of these to be dissmissed rapidly and all eventually.
1). The regulation of the internet is ENTIRELY outside the domain of the states – that is in the constitution – the left’s famous reliance on the commerce clause. Though I would suggest that you look up “dormant commerce clause” to learn what it actually meant.
2) the Regulation fo the internet is ENTIRELY outside the domain of the FCC.
NN was unconstitutional overreach that was headed to SCOTUS.
All the FCC did was avoid getting slapped down.
If you actually want NN – which is an absymally bad idea, then get congress to legislate it.
I have to admit it, tRUMP is the GREATEST!
At being disliked!
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365235-poll-trumps-approval-rating-makes-him-least-popular-first-year
The last time I saw polls on this. Trump is liked more than:
Hillary
McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi
Congress
The Federal Government,
Democrats
Republicans.
🤬 President insensitive asshole oblivious to dates:
https://twitter.com/owillis/status/941813518608637952
New low, Trump. The NRA on this day. FU.
I would imagine that every day of the year is a day that someone would be offended that Trump talked to the NRA.
🤬
The Orwell quote is excellent.
The Irony that you are offering it is delicious.
Trump, is disempowering government.
He is taking power from the corrupt, imposters, theives and traitors, and they are fighting back,.
And it is you that voted them into office.
It is you that are their accomplices.
Jay, I can not take seriously someone who proclaims Trump a tyrant – until you show me where his is actually increasing the power of govenrment.
If I tryannt is a person who on coming to power acts to reduce the power of govenrment over people – that is pretty much NOT the person Orwell is refering to.
I worry that Trump could become that person and I maintain vigilance.
But todate it is his enemies that are the theives, imposters, corrupt traitors.
The epidemic continues. Dustin Hoffman perhaps. We all knew Hollywood was decadent. I’m okay with draining that swamp. Rick Bayan made good distinctions in his post and appealed to common sense. Most of us here have appealed to common sense. This epidemic is a significant cultural shift. Interesting times we live in!
1,020 comments. What is the TNM record for number of comments?
Somewhere around 1700. We have a ways to go.
🤬
When Dems are back in power in 2020 And tRUMP is banished into the shadows of disrepute, his name – already a hated pejorative – will be in such disfavor that government agencies will be directed to refer to him obliquely, with words that rhyme with tRUMP.
Here’s a helpful list for starters:
Rump
Chump
Frump
Grump
Dump
Stump
Schlump
Hump
Bump
Clump
And when he is re-elected ?
http://www.yahoo.com/news/tax-bill-guts-unpopular-obamacare-insurance-mandate-081231479–politics.html
Well this healthcare law is getting much better after this action. Someone is going to file some lawsuit because that is what opposition groups do, but now people are once again free to choose if they have insurance or not. A little American liberty has returned. The pro PPACA progressives will paint the picture that MILLIONS have lost insurance while the truth is millions chose not to buy insurance. There is a difference between government force and choice.
Leaving some of the other parts active is going to solve some of the issues that created the mess we had to begin with. Not everything has been fixed, but the biggest socialist requirement has been removed.
And this gives the GOP a nice campaign issue to run on in 2018 and 2020. “Do you want to be forced to purchase healthcare insurance or pay a fine? If yes, vote for my opponent, Jim Dandy, Democrat. If you want to choose to buy or not buy health insurance, vote for me Joe Smith, Republican”
Anyone want to bet this is a key campaign issue because I think it will be. The democrats will be itching to pass legislation to require people to purchase health insurance again if they get control. I think this will far exceed the amount of negative press the GOP gets from other issues.
Of course someone will sue.
And Jay will tell us how it is obviously wrong. bad, unconstitutional or something because someone is suing.
I would love to know what the argument is – congress can not undo something it should not have been able to do in the first place ?
The Dems 2020 Platform:
-On Taxes “Tax cuts are gonna kill you & you’re gonna die!”
-Healthcare “The GOP is going to kill you & you’re gonna die!”
-Regulations “Repealing regulations is gonna kill you & you’re gonna die!”
-Spending “Cuts are gonna kill you & you’re gonna die!”
Mccarthy – excellent as ever.
The gist is that the FBI needs to demonstrate that it has evidence independent of the Steele Dossier that Carter Page was actually committing a crime prior to securing a FISA warrant to spy on Page,
If it can not do that we have TWO very serious problems.
The Clinton campaign was using the FBI to investigate a political opponent.
The Kremlin was running an operation against the FBI to undermine the credibility of the US election.
In otherwords there may well be Russian Political collusion
Collusion with the Clinton campaign.
Worse the best that can be said for the FBI is that they were duped by the Russians.
This is also why bias matters.
The easiest people to dupe, are those who want to beleive what you are feeding them.
I would particularly ask you to read the entire article.
Because as McCarthy notes, though it was known that Page was sympathetic to Russia.
It is not actually credible that the FBI beleived he was knowingly committing a Crime with Russia.
Why ? Because the Russians tried to corrupt him in 2013, and despite his positive views of Russia, he brought that to the FBI.
So long BEFORE the election, the FBI had reason to beleive that page’s contacts with Russia were not knowingly illegal, and that he would have approached the FBI if he thought otherwise, and that the FBI could talk to him and he would cooperate.
The reason for surveilling Page rather than interviewing him can only be one of two things.
The FBI had credible information independent of the Steele Dosser implicating Page,
OR the FBI was so blinded by Trump hatred and fear that they believed what they had no evidence for.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454709/steele-dossier-source-fisa-warrant-against-trump-campaign
This is going to be a huge problem for Mueller.
As Johnathan Turley noted, The appropriate means to optain this information was by subpeona or with the cooperation of TFA.
It is not at all clear who owns these records, and if Mueller aquired them without the permission of TFA or a subpeona, he puts his entire investigation in jeophardy.
Worse if anything in these records leaked or leaks that has nothing to do with the Russia investigation, Mueller’s investigation is not only toast, but the leaks would be criminal.
There were a appropriate means to obtain these records.
TFA would likely have turned over anything relevant to avoid the risk of turning over everything.
A subpeona would have protected Mueller, but also would likely have resulted in substantially narrowing the records made available to Mueller.
If GSA provided TFA records to Mueller without a subpeona or TFA permission there is a substantial risk they will be barred from prosecuting anything that they uncover as a result.
Regardless, they trigger a nasty legal battle in which even if he wins Mueller looks even more biased.
Contra the TFA lawyers there is an open legal question. Transition records are not obviously government records – while those of the president are.
At the same time TFA allowed GSA posession of them which atleast creates the argument that any priviledge is defunct.
As a matter of public policy it is a really bad idea for GSA to be disclosing Transition records without permission or a subpeona. There is a strong likelyhood that is how courts would rule.
.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/special-counsel-robert-mueller-gets-access-to-thousands-of-trump-transition-emails-ap/
Snore,
Youre full of poo poo.
ALL those emails were sent via the .gov server email address.
The courts have established there are no privacy rights for emails sent over them.
Where do you come up with this dumb analysis, watching FOX?
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office on Sunday defended its work after a lawyer for President Trump’s transition team accused investigators of improperly obtaining thousands of emails from transition officials.
“When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner’s consent or appropriate criminal process,” Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, said in a statement to The Hill.
Jay
The statement is an actual self evident bald face lie and that is the problem.
There is some question as to whether Mueller need a subpeona.
There is an argument – not a certain one, but atleast a possible one that he did not.
But there is no argument that the records belonged to TFA.
Read the Presidential Transition act.
The Transition is an entirely private entity.
GSA is authorized by law to provide them services.
The appropriate process was to get a subpoena.
Mueller did not. This was a mistake.
Mueller and Trump are playing Chicken.
In that game someone always loses badly.
In this case the odds are NOT in Mueller’s favor.
The only way this goes well for Mueller is if he manages to find something that get’s Trump impeached. No one will care about due process in an impeachment hearing.
Every other outcome makes Mueller look like a lawless crook.
Mueller, you, the left have not grasped from the begining of this the very real possibility that you are wrong and what the consequences for you in that event are.
There are many reasons we follow the rule of law.
One of those is that when we act impartially, and it is clear, whatever the results – we still have integrity.
When this started we were all sold Mueller’s integrity
Mueller has lost that.
He has the long shot of coming out as the man who took down trump.
But if he fails he at BEST is remembered as the man who botched the investifation,
and at worst as a corrupt political hack.
Further he has substantially increased the odds that congress demands a separate special council. Mueller will be one of the targets of that SC.
.
I don’t care what the law says, if you don’t want someone seeing something you wrote, don’t write it. Things you don’t want someone to see, expect them to see it if written.
I personally assume that nearly everything I email could become public at some time in the future.
For the most part I run my life as if I have nothing to hide – because I do not.
I am pretty dull. I have never sexually harrassed anyone. I have never done illegal drugs and rarely do legal ones, though I am finding that change slowly as I age.
I barely drink, I have never smoked, I have never cheated on my wife. I have never said anything to anyone I would not stand behind if everyone knew.
Aside from an occasional sarcastic streak – amplified by my wife, which could be very embarrasing if taken litterally and ot of context, I have nothing to hide.
But many people do.
Further, even nothing to hide does not really mean everything you ever said or wrote should be posted on the internet.
I have had candid discussions about hiring people and firing others. I have had discussions about the bad conduct of others.
I have on occasion had to speak honestly about people, and say things I would prefer not to say to their faces. Either because it would embarrass me, of more likely them.
That is not common but it happens.
I do nto think TFA is that concerned about criminal evidence.
They are concerned about the fact that a major part of the transistion is decisions about hiring.
There is nothing good that will come from revealing what was said about various prosepects.
I expect that we will see some of this start to leak out – because it is damaging and effective.
It would also be illegal.
Bzzt, wrong.
Courts have established that there is limited rights of privacy with regard to your employer.
In this instance TFA is the employer – not GSA.
By law GSA is obligated to provide a wide variety of services and resources to the newly elected president. In return the transition agrees to severely limit the donations it collects to fund the transition.
While there are some legal issues here, and TFA might lose this fight, it is not clear, and there are excellent reasons they should win.
One effect of Mueller’s actions that is already irreparable is that future transitions will not trust GSA, they will presume that any resources provided by GSA will be insecure or compromised.
Which means it is more likely that future transitions eschew GSA assistance and the fund raising restrictions that come with them.
One of the reasons that you see more larger private donations to presidential campaigns 0 is because increasingly candidates are NOT taking FEC matching funds.
This is a permutation of that.
If a transition can not trust that it controls its own records, that taking assistance from GSA does not make the private into public, then they will cease using GSA.
As is typical of statist – you presume government controls everything.
It does not.
Records do not become the property of the federal government by using government domains –
specifically one reserved for the transition.
BTW it is arguable they emails DID NOT pass through government servers.
They passed through servers supplied by the government to TFA – it is not legally the same.
I do not watch FOX. I know a great deal first hand about email and privacy.
The involvment of GSA in this complicates things.
As a rule the “employer” owns the emails – though there are some exceptions providing limited protection to employees.
During the Transition GSA is a service provider – not an employer.
The .gov domain name is meaningless.
More meaningful is the fact that GSA was in possession of these records.
But that still makes them little different than an ISP.
No matter what GSA and the government do not own transition records.
Because TFA allowed GSA to have control ot them, that substantially weakens their case.
But it does not alter who the owner of the records is.
Mueller should have gotten the records from TFA or gotten a subpeona.
Then there would be no question.
Acting as he has, he has given Trump another major issue demonstrating bias.
As I told you before – if Mueller ever finds the unicorn – Trump is toast regardless, Impeachment is political not criminal. Congress is not going to give Trump “due process” or care about the niceties of civil rights.
But when Mueller fails – this matters alot.
It is hard to get people to care about violating the rights of the guilty.
But when you violate the rights of the innocent then YOU are the criminal.
The less mueller finds, the more corrupt mueller looks.
Regardless, you play by the rules because you beleive in the rule of law.
Mueller does not. And that is a big deal.
That’s right, Dave. The emails were private emails, and everyone writing them was a private citizen at the time they were written. They are private by statute, by the way, which was made clear in the original agreement allowing presidential transition teams to have a .gov domain.
Whether or not email is a very un-secure form of information, what Mueller’s team did was not only unethical but illegal. The problem is that they don’t care, and neither do Democrats. The goal is not to conduct a thorough investigation, or to assure the American people that the government is in safe hands. The goal is to find something, anything, with which to impeach Trump. If Andrew Weissman’s illegal actions accomplish that goal, Democrats will laud Mueller, no matter how corrupt his team has been. Weissman put the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen out of business. Three years later, SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that he was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, and had coerced a guilty plea.
The firm was gone. Along with its 85,000 jobs. But Weissman had his paycheck, and, for some reason, he wasn’t disbarred.
Trump famously does not use email. So, it’s unlikely that he wrote any of the emails that Mueller stole. And while this is argued in the courts, Mueller will continue his witch hunt.
I think this is a desparation move on Muellers part.
If Mueller finds the unicorn – proof of Russian collusion – how he got it will not matter, just as almost no one cares that the DNC emails were hacked and wikileaks dumped them.
If Mueller finds something that is sufficient for impeachment – there will be no court deciding admissibility. And you will not get congressmen to blind themselves to illegally obtained evidence.
I have a problem with this – but only because Mueller is part of government, and must play by the rules.
If NYT (or wikileaks) hacked the TFA accounts and uncovered the evidence I would care less.
However the probability of the above outcome is very near zero.
The more likely outcome is that Mueller finds something that allows him to torture more Trump lieutenants for process violations or crap having nothing to do with the focus of the investigation.
In that instance Mueller is going to be in court trying to preserve his evidence,
I suspect he will prevail – probably on the basis of inevitable discovery.
But he will waste an enormous amount of money and time fighting over his own mistake.
And there is a reasonable possibility he will lose.
We have had many many instances where prosecutions of this type have failed as a result of prosecutorial misconduct.
One of the things I learned more recently is that Mueller lead a Rico prosecution of Hells angels that Failed TWICE mostly because of process errors and bull headedness.
I am not entirely sure Mueller was not appointed because he is likely to fail – he is intimately tied to a large number of failed prosecutions and bad choices in government.
Mueller is tied to Ruby Ridge, and to the botched post 9/11 anthrax case.
Regardless, I am also not sure that dragging this out with a protracted fight over the TFA emails is not also part of Mueller’s strategy.
Most people grasped more recently that Mueller’s investigation is probably nearing its end, there is not anywhere left to go, that it is fizzling.
This creates something for him to fight about for another 9 months.
While Trump should not fire Mueller, he should impose a short deadline and require that Mueller can not extend it unilaterally, that he must demonstrate real progress and a compelling interest in continuing. While the Starr investigation was an independent council – answerable to congress not the DOJ, he still was obligated to get the approval of congress every time he wanted an extension or to broaden the scope of the investigation.
The SC is supposed to be more limited than the IC was, Mueller has ended up with MORE not less independence than Starr.
There were also attacks on Starr claiming partisanship on the part of his staff.
It is usefull to go back and review those to see how minor they were with Starr compared to Mueller.
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/942265709156958210
Ken White(Popehat) is great. If you are interested in first amendment law you should follow him.
He is also correct – Republicans have an abysmal record opposing illegally obtained evidence.
But I don’t. Nor does Alan Derschowitz, or Johnathan Turley or any of the other civil libertarians that have been saying all of this is crap.
Nor do libertarians more generally.
So the quesiton is where do YOU or other “moderates” on TNM stand ?
Is it OK for government to ignore the rules ? To do whatever it damn well pleases, in order to convict someone – whether they committed a crime or not.
Regardless, if Mueller got something from the TFA documents he has purloined that extablishes Trump/Russia collusion – no one is going to care about the legality of Mueller’s aquisition of that information, and Trump will be impeached.
I am not concerned about that – the odds of the TFA documents giving Mueller proof of something impossible are nil.
There are two consequences of this that are highly probable.
This damages Mueller badly at a time he can not afford to be. Mueller needs an actual victory now – he needs an indictment or plea that actually bolsters the thesis of his investigation.
And that is not happening.
This empowers Congress to further investigate DOJ/FBI and the IC.
I am not sure exactly what is going to happen. But I would be shocked if the names we are hearing repeatedly remain in government very long.
There is a great deal of pressure to open a second independent council investigation.
That is warranted, because this house cleaning needs to take place.
There is lots of evidence of political malfeasance. there is a strong possibility of a conspiracy.
I do not think we have seen that inside government since the 19th century.
Harvard CAPS/Harris has a solid majority of people believing Mueller has a serious conflict of interests.
“Is it OK for government to ignore the rules ? To do whatever it damn well pleases, in order to convict someone – whether they committed a crime or not.”
No, of course it’s not OK to do that.
But there’s no evidence Mueller’s investigation has done any of that, only your fevered imagination spinning suppositions.
Jay.”But there’s no evidence Mueller’s investigation has done any of that, only your fevered imagination spinning suppositions.”
And there won’t be because that whiny ass Attorney general won’t open an investigation into everything going back to the Clinton e-mail investigation, including the over reach of Mueller.
Corruption in government is not limited to your position about Trump. It is alive and well in the justice department. Trump needs to fire all the appointed individuals asses, bring in some retired states attorney generals to clean house, find the FBI agents that are nothing but card carrying political hacks that don’t care about justice, only supporting one of the major parties and send them packing. This crap is getting to be like the KGB knocking on your door.
Ron,
there is plenty of evidence of bias at this point.
I do not know enough of civil service law,
regardless anyone in the federal government who is in a position where they have the ability to make consequential policy decisions or provide advice to those who do, should be subject to termination without cause and without appeal.
I am essentially looking to distinguish between the worker bees, and the managers – even middle managers.
Managers in the corporate world are not protected by unions and rarely protected by employment laws, They are responsible for the decisions they make and can be easily terminated without proving cause. They have no union protection an the NLRB laughs at them.
The same should be true in government.
Frankly overall we protect government employees far too well.
It is virtually impossible to get rid of a bad cop.
Bad teachers too often find themselves charged with crimes (and sometimes cops) because the standards for a criminal conviction are lower than the requirements to fire someone.
Many of the people and actions that have come out more recently – I have zero problem firing those people for.
What is starting to become evident is that the Russians ran a very successful operation against the US.
Not by colluding with Trump, but by using Steele, Fusion GPS, the DNC, Clinton and ultimately the FBI, DOJ and the obama administration and now Mueller to undermine the US political system.
The russian threat is not facebook adds, it is getting us to investigate ourselves and to have us destroy our own institutions.
Jayl
Bzzt, wrong – there is plenty of evidence. The facts here are not in doubt,.
All that is in doubt is how the courts will decide if the issue is presented to them.
The fact is that Mueller obtained records that belonged to TFA without a warrant.
The Transition is private as a matter of both fact and law.
GSA provides services to the transition. They Own nothing.
It might be arguably unwise to have allowed GSA to keep the records after the inauguration.
Though the norm is that GSA keeps them and turns them over to the presidential library at the end of their tenure.
But we have never had an SC attempt to get Transition documents before – much less without a warrant.
The public policy argument with respect to this is that because of this future presidential transitions are less likely to trust GSA and more likely to opperate completely on their own.
In which case they will be funded by unlimited private donations.
The services of GSA are provided to the Transition in return for the transitions agreement to limit the solicitation of private donations to fund the transition.
It is trivial for future transitions to avoid the problem TFA has now – they can just say no to GSA.
It is certain as a consequence of this that future transitions will be far more suspicious of GSA.
As a matter of law, had Mueller sought a warrant – he likely would have gotten it.
But the scope of the warrant would have been limited to records demonstrably related to the probable cause Mueller would have had to establish in applying for the warrant.
In otherwords the court almost certainly would have said – you can have some but not all of what you want.
Further the court almost certainly would have required Mueller to have controls placed on the records to prevent unauthorized disclosure and would have held Mueller accountable.
That is the rule of law.
Further warrants are not done secretly – except those of the FISA court.
The probable cause Mueller would have had to demonstrate would have been made public.
We would all have a better idea of how strong or weak Mueller’s cases is.
Contra what is argued – the actual business of govenrment is inherently the property of the public – except the rare instances when there is a compelling justification – usually national security otherwise.
While the presumption outside of government is that our records are secure – protected by the 4th amendment.
I would note that right now Carpenter vs. United States is before the supreme court and court watches are tentatively predicting a 6-3 or 5-4 decision favoring carpenter.
That case is much like this – can the government without a warrant demand records in the possession of Cell Phone companies of their clients transactions ?
If SCOTUS rules for carpenter – which would be consistent with past rullings, there is no possibility they are ruling for Mueller.
As I said – none of that will matter in the slightest if Mueller actually finds the unicorn.
Prove collusion by any means proper or not, and Trump will be impeached.
But fail to do so and we will all be looking for someone to blame.
Mueller has taken another large step in assuring the blame falls on him
As I told you before – you are playing a giant game of chicken with Trump.
There is only one way you win – find the unicorn.
IF you fail – you lose “BIGGLY”.
The public has already decided by a strong majority that Mueller is conflicted.
Those polls predate the spate of recent revalations.
I would suggest that you might want to consider something.
The left seems to think Trump’s endgame is to fire Mueller.
Maybe you should think about the possibility that Trump’s endgame is to prosecute those who came after him and failed.
Like I said, you are playing chicken and you have only one way to win.
You must catch a unicorn, and so far there is no reason to believe that is in the offing.
If this investigation fails – Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strzok, Urh, Rhoads, Powers, . Yates, Lynch, ….
all become targets of what follows.
At best the all are tarred and feathered for life. At worst some are prosecuted.
You want this to keep going until the election.
What happens to democrats in 2018 if this continues to proceed as it has – with nothing of substance implicating Trump and with more and more evidence that the DOJ, FBI and Intelligence community have been politicized for a decade and the federal government has been used as a tool to go after political enemies ?
Thanksgiving is past, stop gobbling like a partisan turkey with ignorant assessment contrary to law.
“In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, for example, ruled, in Rehberg v. Paulk, that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy once any copy of the email is delivered to a third party—the GSA, in this case, is a third party.”
The GSA Therefore also INFORMED the Trump presidential transition team that they would comply with any law-enforcement query.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2017/12/17/how-mueller-got-trumps-presidential-transition-teams-emails/#8285827c2d50
Don’t you know rudimentary email privacy law?
Email sent by employees through their employer’s equipment has no expectation of privacy; the employer may monitor all communications through their equipment.
In O’Connor v. Ortega, the Court found no reasonable expectation of privacy to work generated emails if they’re work related. Therefore Emails written by or sent or received by tRUMP transition staff on, about, or related to the candidate or other staff members are not protected.
Additionally, Government employees have further reduced privacy than private sector employees:
“Under various public records acts and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the public can gain access to almost anything a government employee writes down. Also, due to the nature of their job, courts are typically unwilling to find that government employees had a reasonable right to privacy in the first place.[29]” (Wikipedia)
The GSA is a government agency. It’s servers and drives and the information it stores and transmits have no expectation of privacy.
Rehberg v. Paulk is about section 1983 immunity not email.
It went all the way to the Supreme court so it is more than an 11th circuit decision.
I am well aware that as a consequence of the war on Drugs the 4th amendment has been raped pillaged and burned. I am also aware that there is an enormous body of contradictory law regarding it.
This instance touches on that.
AGAIN FACT:
The Transition is NOT a part of the government, its members are NOT government employees.
Mny of them never become government employees. Those that do become govenrment employees when inaugurated or confirmed by the senate.
All the Cases involving employees (government or otherwise) are correct but irrelevant.
Peter Strzok had no expectation of privacy in his employer provided Cell Phone.
Just as you do not either.
The members of the Trump Transition team have not expecation of privacy with respect to TFA.
TFA is the “owner” and “employer” and the body with the expectation of privacy.
There is actually no legal dispute over whether TFA owns the documents.
The transition records are not subject to FOIA the transition is NOT a government entity, it is purely private. It is fundamentally the continuation of the campaign after winning the election,
Even if the transition were subject to FOIA, you would still need a court order. .
GSA does not OWN the Transistion records – and BTW this about about more than emails.
It is about papers, cell phones, laptops, as well as emails.
Ownership of the “servers” is entirely irrelevant.
Ownership of the domain is entirely irrelevant.
Expectation of privacy which you refer to is relevant. The fact that something you own is in the posession of a third party does NOT eliminate the expecation of privacy. Though it does weaken it.
We have chosen by enacting laws to provide the Private Transition government resources – in return for limiting private contributions. They remain private.
The Presidential transition act can not (and does not) take away the rights – including the privacy rights of the members of the transition.
There is only ONE significant legal question, and that is to what extent did TFA waive its rights by allowing GSA possesion of its records.
The answer to that is not clear – further particularly in the criminal context – it is likely to favor TFA.
The NSA and CIA are routinely allowed incredibly broad access to the private information of US citizens. They collect that information – without warrant. That information is kept on government servers. Yet even though NSA and CIA possess that information and gathered it from third parties, they still can not “search” it without a FISA warrant.
Further a FISA warrant is only good for an intelligence operation.
The moment material obtained under a FISA warrant leads to a criminal matter involving a US person, the investigation must be passed off to Criminal investigators and prosecutors who must use normal Criminal warrants to conduct searches.
My guess is that if there ends up being a legal fight over this, Mueller will prevail – but not for any of the reasons you cite. He will prevail under the standard of “inevitable discovery”.
If GSA had not provided the documents Mueller could have requested a warrant that TFA could have opposed.
Had that happoened:
Mueller would have had to have demonstrated PUBLICLY Probable cause
He talked GSA into something that it was very stupid for them to do to avoid making the basis for a warrant public, and possibly because he does not have enough of a basis to get a warrant.
A court would have reviewed the warrant and almost certainly have narrowed it substantially.
Finally I will note with respect to GSA – they are part of the executive branch.
They are not independent. Even if your entire nonsensical argument was actually true and the transition were govenrment employees with no expectation of privacy,
GSA is still answerable to the president. They can not turn over government records without a court order, absent the direction of the president.
You are citing a bunch of case law. Presumably you are getting it from somewhere.
Whatever source you are using while they are providing you with (mostly) good law, it is NOT applicable – quite obviously.
When you are mislead, you should quit relying on those who mislead you.
This is not an employment privacy issue.
This is not a government records issue.
The sole issue is what are the requirements for a criminal investigator to search private records held by a third party. With the nuance in this instance that the holding third party is the government.
The closest similar fact pattern would be if the FBI criminal division (or Mueller) wanted access to the captured communications that the NSA and CIA keep.
In that instance the government requires a FISA warrant for intelligence related searches, and a Criminal warrant to actually target a US person for prosecution.
Dave I have not been keeping up with the investigation crap anymore. When they come up with something constructive then I will pay attention. Right now all I see is more government spending going into a big shit hole like so much other money that no one cares about. I won’t be around to say :I told you so”, but anyone in there 40’s with kids will live through seeing their offspring going through some really bad times when the debt hits a ceiling and interests rates begin to rise. There will not be enough taxes available to keep things going in a good way.
I do know enough though that I think TFA had something to do with e-mails on a government server for the trump team before the inauguration. If that is in fact true, then my position is this is not trump data or anyone else on his team. It is a government server and that server is available for those with a need to know to look at that information. Had it been a Trump Tower server, then anyone accessing that data legally would need a warrant if it were not authorized by trump or his company to access.
When someone says they have e-mails on a company server and that is private information, to me that blowing smoke up someones ass trying to cover something up. Its company property. not private property unless you are the company.
The budget is the next issue before congress.
You and I are likely to be completely in sync on that.
I fully expect to be disappointed.
At the same time outside of defense which should be cut too, but wont be, I expect republicans to be atleast trying to cut spending.
I expect they will fail or at best do a little at the edges.
Much of the records of our life are not stored in our homes.
domain names are meaningless. They do not imply ownership.
My email is primarily stored on a server owned by Hostmonster.
My email is not Hostmonsters property.
Our 4th amendment rights have been seriously eroded by the war on drugs.
However as a rule of thumb, absent exigent circumstances – which do not exist in this case,
government must get a warrant to obtain a private parties records even when they are in the posession of a 3rd party. While there are way too many exceptions – none are relevant here.
There is no doubt that GSA was in posession of these records.
There is no argument that makes it far easier for Mueller to gain access to them.
But it does not change the fact that they are owned by TFA.
Mueller’s press releases is false and he knows it.
Mueller will get away with this – mostly.
There are 3 possibilities going forward:
Mueller finds the unicorn. In which case no one will care how many rules he broke to do so. Trump will be impeached. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that.
Mueller will find something to attempt to leverage a few more Trump surogates. That will inevitably trigger serious evidentiary issues which Mueller will likely lose. There is a fairly high probability the courts will suppress evidence from the TFA records
Certainty ? Nope, this could go all the way to SCOTUS.
Regardless, Mueller has created uncertainty in his own investigation by failing to get a warrant.
That is a mistake. Many people are going to ask – why not just get a warrant, rather than risk losing the evidence ?
The third possibility is Mueller comes up with little or nothing. That will result in huge backlash. The left does nto seem to grasp how dangerous playing Chicken is. You win, or you lose. And whoever loses, loses really bad.
Ken Starr was relentless as IC (which is differnt from SC – he had more power),
But Starr dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s. He sought authorization for every expansion of his investigation. Maybe he should not have gotten it, but he did.
Starr never gambled. He kept his investigation clear of actual evidence of partisanship – thought there were claims. There were no choices he made where he stretched the rules.
Mueller has failed to heed that. Like all those text;s etc. He has made this personal.
He has made it clear he is getting Trump and he does nto care much about the means.
You can be politically motivated – biased, and relentless – but you must not only play by the rules but err on the side of caution – particularly where there is no downside to getting a warrant.
Why have this fight with TFA and Trump’s lawyers when it is not necescary – just get a warrant.
The presumption will be that your actions are driven by your bias, that you have lost objectivity,
It is not the number of democrats or the Strzok texts that are the problem. It is the increasing acts in furtherance of getting Trump. It is acting when acting was not necescary, it is going deeply into the grey when that was not needed. It is when every decision appears to be driven by a desire to “get trump” not a desire to find the truth than Mueller loses.
🤬
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank #PresidentPooPoo for the way he has stood up to Putin and protected America from future information warfare attacks from Moscow.
I’d like to praise him for his efforts to prevent Russia from further destabilizing US democracy, for speaking so firmly and responsibly in condemning it.
I’d like to… unfortunately I can’t.
Todate the only evidence of Russia Successfully destabalizing the US – is in your head – quite litterally.
Russia has incredibly successfully with the assistance of democrats DOJ and FBI Influenced the american left to belieive something that is untrue.
No one has ever said Russia did not intend to disrupt US elections.
That has been a given – they have true to do so for decades.
Even Brennan testified that their efforts in 2016 were not unusual.
Thus far all the claims they aided Trump have backfired.
What is evidence is that they have played democrats, the clinton aparatus, the FBI and DOJ like a violin.
They dangled the Steele Dossier and democrats bit – hook line and sinker. Then they walked it to the FBI/DOJ.
Bias is when your political views cause you to act differently than you would if you are neutral.
It is self-evident that myriads of members of the Obama Administration – the DOJ/FBI the IC allowed their hatred of Trump to color their judgement.
Trump has been president for a year – you may not like what he has done, but he has done nothing improper. The world has not ended. Nothing you feared has happened.
Nothing that Strzok, McCabe, …. feared has happened – except their own demise.
I would further note that nearly all these people – and some are key figures in not merely the botched clinton investigation, but in numerous other coverups and failures of the Obama administration.
Aside from political bias and trump hatred these people have another reason to fear and loath Trump. He is an existential threat to them.
At this time every key person asociated with the 2010 Russia corruption investigation, the U1 investigation, the Clinton foundation investigation, the Fast and Furious investigation, the IRS investigation, the Clinton email investigation should be fired.
We need a DOJ/FBI that is going to vigorously pursue public corruption – whether of democrats or republicans.
Whatever threat Russia might pose – a corrupt administration is far larger.
“Todate the only evidence of Russia Successfully destabalizing the US – is in your head – quite litterally.”
So you’re saying they didn’t try to destabilize us?
Or if they did try it wasn’t successful?
And if so, just ignore it?
Thanks for the shrewd analysis.
Try reading.
I am absolutely saying they tried to mess with us.
The did so by sucking the Clinton Campaign into feeding garbage to the FBI and they getting FBI/DOJ, NSA, .CIA as well as guilible idiots to buy that garbage.
In otherwords, the Russians did next to nothing to actually interfere with the election.
But they conducted a near perfect operation to get the US government and the US people to distrust the results of our own election.
Virtually everything that we KNOW the Russians did resulted in Clinton, the government and the people losing Faith in Trump’s election.
The Russians did not target Clinton. They targeted Trump.
And it worked.
They suckered you.
Forgetting your make beleive regarding the election – what is it that Russia actually did – prior and subsequently that we should be deeply fearful of ?
And why is it you think Trump is a Russian puppet ?
Since the Election Trump has freed domestic oil and gas production – to the detriment of Russia.
Has unblocked the pipelines, has agreed to provide europe with US energy
All actions that are harmful to Russia that Obama did not do.
Trump approved rules of engagement in Syria that allowed US pilots to shoot down Russians.
Trump approved an attack on the Syrian airforce that Russia vigorously opposed.
Does nto sound like the actions of Putin’s puppet.
I do nto agree with everything Trump has done, but he has changed the tenor of US relations with the rest of the world. He has sent a clear message – to the entire world that the US is strong and that we are going to protect our own interests, and those of our friends.
That we will do so alone if nescacry. That we will do what is in our own interests, what we beleive to be right, and we will do it regardless of whether the rest of the world supports us or not.
That is BAD for Russia and putin.
If Anything I believe that Trump has been TOO Aggressive.
Obama lead from behind. Trump actually leads.
I am about as far from a neo-con as you can get.
I believe as George washington did that we should do what is right – because it is right, and avoid
entanglement in the affairs of other nations,
Regardless what is it that you fear from Russia ?
That they are going to buy another 100K of facebook adds in 2020 ?
What is it you would have had Trump do with regard to Russia that he has not done ?
How is it that Obama “stood up to Russia ?”
Why did Kushner EVER have a security clearance?
I learned very quickly in my professional career that you never put anything in writing you do not want to have to defend 20-30-40 years from that date. And with e-mail, that became much more apparent because you did not have to preserve anything other than something electronic which was like preserving air. It was always there, just could not see it.
Anyone that puts anything in writing that can come back to haunt them in the future have less than an ounce of brain matter. It is illogical. The only way to get rid of it is to wipe your server clean and even then, it may not disappear.
You are touching on a complex topic.
On very rare occasions I have deliberately avoided creating a record of something I have said or done, because though the words or action were correct they could easily be misrepresented or misconstrued.
But nearly all of the time I have done the opposite.
I have been careful about what I write, and gone out of my way to make SURE there was a record. I have never regretted that.
In myriads of instances I have resolved conflicts and avoided legal battles because I had good records. Even the rare occasions when my own recollection was faulty – the records prevented conflict. Far more often than not my records confirmed that I said and did what I recall having said and done. But when that was not the case – the error is mine, and the right response is to live up to whatever I committed to – even if I do not recall having made that committment and now think it was wrong.
Unfortunately there is a last possibility which I had never dreamed of until recently. That conflict could occur where copious records exist and prove the truth of my case and yet no one bothers to read or listen. Where the facts do not matter, and the law does not matter, and what is right does not matter. And the outcome is rooted in whim.
Regardless, I have never regretted keeping copious records. This is something my mother drilled into me starting very young. It is something that is actually contrary to my own nature.
It is still something that against my own natural impulses I have done throughout my life.
If I do not have an email from 10 years ago – it is because some technical malfunction destroyed it. I have computer records of communications business and personal going back to 1983.
They do not always reflect who I am today. But they reflect a person that I remain proud of what they did and what they said.
I saw something funny on Facebook awhile back, perhaps you saw it too: “Dance as if no one is watching you, write emails as if they will be read aloud in a court deposition.” Mike Hatcher
You cite a tweet quoting the Deputy Counsel after they fact.
There is a record that the actual counsel – who unfortunately died suddenly in august said exactly the opposite. In fact it appears that the GSA counsel’s body was not cold before the Deputy counsel reversed what TFA had been told for months.
Regardless, you do not seem to grasp – as a matter of fact, and as a matter of law, the Transition records are PRIVATE PROPERTY.
GSA holding them is no different from a storage company.
This is not really about GSA – While GSA should not have turned the records over to Mueller,
The real error was on the part of Mueller.
Third parties do not tend to fight to the death to protect the records of their clients – and we do not expect them to.
We expect law enforcement to err on the side of caution and get a warrant rather than risk getting bitch slapped by the courts.
“Transition records are PRIVATE PROPERTY.”
WRONG.
Because you say so ?
Trump does not become president until inaugurated. Prior to that he remains a private citizen.
The members of the transition are private citizens – except for the few that are appointed, and they become govenrment employees when confirmed – not before.
GSA is by law obligated to provide services.
The law does NOT require the Transition to accept those services, nor change the rights of the Transition. The Presidential Transition act is entirely about the obligations of GSA and the government – not the Transition team themselves.
Rep. Lieu can say what he pleases, but the tweet linked to is not on point to his comments.
As best as I can tell the impication is that Kushner should lose his security clearance for assuming that the GSA would do its job properly and keep secure, classified records.
All the tweet does is point out another reason that Mueller should have gotten a warrant.
There can be little doubt that there are enormous amounts of information in the Transition records that could be damaging if made public – not damaging in the sense of proving Trump acted badly.
But damaging as in candid conversations by the Transition leaders about potential appointments.
Do you think it would be of benefit to the country to find out who opposed Tillerson or Mattis or Christie or Sessions or Gulliani for various positions ?
It is highly likely that some of this is going to leak.
When it does Mueller and company become to top target for any investigation.
You and Mueller seem to be clueless about the fact that fishing expeditions are dangerous.
Maybe you will find a crime in something that is far removed from where you should have been investigating. More likely you will find some peice of information that is not a crime but is damaging or embarrassing to someone, and now you become responsible for keeping it secret.
And failing to do so may be a crime.
Another way the Russian’s may have gamed the US.
There are only three possibilities – the Russian memo is not fake and Lynch and Clinton conspired to protect Clinton and subordinates.
The Russian memo is not fake but for some reason is wrong.
The russian memo is fake – in which case it is just the Steele dossier in reverse, and effort to falsely tie Clinton to Russia and election fraud.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/23/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-probe-senate-judiciary-239905
They did think it through.
Why would Andrew (who hadn’t examined relevant law) say otherwise?
Why would McCarthy say otherwise ?
Because he is a former US Attorney, as well as private attorney who never would have done something this stupid.
Because quite simply, this is not even close to a slam dunk for Mueller.
Even if he wins – which I think he probably would, he creates 3 huge problems for himself:
In the event he uses these records in anyway to criminally prosecute someone, he has added enormous expense and month’s of littigation and a real if small possibility that he could lose.
In the event you doubt that I would note that myriads of similar prosecutions have been tossed int he past 4 decades over similar problems – I would suggest looking at the Iran-Contra mess, and the disaster that Preet Bahara created up in New York.
Mueller’s worst possible outcome would be to be able to prove some misconduct on the part of some Trump surrogate, and be barred for prosecuting because of that.
No sane federal prosecutor would do that if there was even a 10% chance of losing.
Do you understand these guys are used to 95% conviciton rates.
Mueller BTW has a very low conviction rate for a prosecutor
One of the reasons is that he is egotistical. stubborn and bull headed and does not listen to subordinates who tell him something is going to cause problems.
Personally I think Trump is playing Mueller like a violin.
I think Trump is mostly happy about this.
Mueller keeps getting provoked into stupidity.
Let me ask you
You are Robert Mueller.
You can engage in slight of hand and get the records you want, with maybe a 10% risk that the courts will later slap you down – actually there are near certain to strongly state he should have gotten a warrant, but they are likely not to suppress the records.
Or you can go to court and get a warrant.
Or you have an active Grand Jury, and you can get a subpeona.
So why would you do A when that is certain to make you look bad, and likely to cost you alot of legal effort later.
Further you are after Transition records. While you MIGHT get more of this chicklet nonsense that you have with Flynn, that is a game that only the far left is supporting you on, it is highly unlikely that Transition records are going to contain some smoking gun where some Transition member says something like
“Yea, remember back in April when we met with russians to plan hacking the DNC”
Mueller is gambling that some one in the Transition is going to be emailing about unicorns in the past at a time when they are focussed entirely on the future.
NN advocates are in good company.
Keep trying to tall you Nazi’s are socialists.
And here a compelling argument from the left.
Dave very few in the middle class can qualify for a $750K or more mortgage.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/heres-how-much-you-have-to-earn-to-be-considered-middle-class.html
Why should I, in NC subsidize someone in CA making upper income salary buying a $750K through tax writeoffs for them that means my rate will be higher.
3 scoops costing more than 1. High priority and high internet users paying more than low priority users, higher income individuals with few deductions paying more that lower income individuals. I am consistent in not believing in neutralizing income so people with less subsidize people with more.
My remarks regarding Sen. Feinsteni’s tweet were sarcasm.
I am not interested in “how much you have to earn to be considered middle class”
My parents were upper middle class. I am not. My life is far better and richer than theirs even though I am poorer.
The tenants in my apartments are in the bottom quintile, they live better than my upper middle class parents did 4 decades ago.
By almost all measures almost all of us are better off today than 4 decades ago – regardless of class labels.
I fully support SALT, I fully oppose ALL tax deductions. Again my posting of Feinstein’s tweet was to poke fun at it.
I do not support subsidizing anyone or anything – rich poor.
Nor do I support penalizing anything.
Flat taxes, no deductions, let each of us make our decisions in life without arcane tax issues factoring in.
Further everyone should have “skin in the game” with respect to taxation and therefore spending .
The entire progressive ideology would collapse if people knew that the cost of any new spending would come from their pocket. It is virtually impossible to pass a law if ordinary people beleive it will cost them money – even only a small amount.
I do not think we are at odds.
Dave: “By almost all measures almost all of us are better off today than 4 decades ago – regardless of class labels.”
Even more so, the same can categorically be said of China.
Should we swap our system for theirs?
Absolutely China is better today than 40 years ago.
The entire world is better today that 40 years ago.
But the improvement has not be uniform.
And we know how things have gotten better, and why and why some have improved more than others.
Uniformly, the rate of improvement correlates to:
The absolute measure of economic freedom
The rate of increase in economic freedom
China’s standard of living has exploded because it started with near zero economic freedom and has increased that freedom rapidly.
If you wish to understand this, here is a easy to read book by Nobel prize winner Ronald Coase one of the top 4 economists of the past century by nearly everyone’s measure.
Oh! No! Proof! Trump is colluding with Russia!
No the Obama administration would not obstruct justice ?
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/
Dave’s right – too much government is criminal.
“Tax Bill: John Cornyn Says Tax Cut Potentially Benefiting Bob Corker Was Part Of Effort To Secure Votes For Passage”
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/tax-bill-john-cornyn-says-tax-cut-potentially-benefiting-bob-corker-was-part
https://twitter.com/thom_hartmann/status/942476684921528320
Do Libertarians favor letting politicians scam tax laws for their own benefit?
Please advise.
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/942456112539877376
Jay “Do Libertarians favor letting politicians scam tax laws for their own benefit?
Please advise.”
This Libertarian analyzes legislation on how it impacts all Americans, not one group or the other. In 2014, there were 31 million businesses in the USA (according to the Tax Foundation) and of those 28.5 (rounded) million were pass through businesses. Pass through businesses are ones where the income generated is taxed at the individual rate, not at the corporate rate. In many of these businesses the top rate was over 44%. Pass through business income is generated by individual businesses, partnerships and “S” corporations (Small privately held incorporated businesses)
When the tax rate was reduced from the high 30% for big corporations, that meant ALL privately held pass through business income was going to be taxed at a much higher rate than large corporations. Is that fair to tax 28 million small businesses more than the handful of large corporations(as a percent of total businesses)?
I do not believe so. I could care less if Corker owns a private business where he will benefit. He is just one of 28.5 million. Should he exclude his business in the legislation, or should he take your position and say screw 28.5 million business owners because it will look bad that I included this in my demands.
Maybe we all need to stop reading all the political crap people post and use some common sense in our analysis of legislation that is proposed or passed. Maybe we need more businessmen in congress that know something about running a business and get rid of all the career politicians like Shumer, Pelosi, McConnell, Ryan and everyone else that has been there for years that dont know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to finances.
I think this bill has bad pieces in it. I think small business owners should pay up to the same percent of income as large corporations. Not a penny more. I favor a rate comparable to the European rate. Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate at 18.7 percent, with Ireland at 12.5% so our proposed 21% will be closer, but will we still bring back the pharmaceutical companies and technology companies now based in Ireland? I favor the repeal of the individual mandate because that is American liberty, to choose what you buy, not to have government dictate what you buy. But I do not favor the changes in the standard deduction and the elimination of personal exemptions. A family of four making 59,000 per year would have increased taxable income of $2,500 under the proposed legislation. Even with a decrease in the tax rates, that is not a tax cut for many in the middle class. And if I heard right, there will be people getting checks due to child credits that don’t even pay taxes. WTF is that all about?
So maybe its time for our government to stop wasting so much money, fix entitlement programs, fix medicare and social security, cut Medicaid and give a portion of that to the middle class in real tax relief and use the rest to cut the debt and deficit!!
Does that answer your LIBERTARIAN question?
Both sides keep mangling language to suite their ends.
I do not care about “fair”.
I do care about the consequences of disparate treatment.
Corporate tax rates and “pass thru” tax rates have no connection to each other at all.
All corporate taxation is DOUBLE taxation,.
If you tax a corporations profits – you will tax them again when those profits are eventually transfered to owners – stockholders.
The correct corporate tax is ZERO. If a corporation choses to keep all of its profits and not distribute any – that has another name – reinvest, and that should be highly encouraged, not discouraged.
Conversely, there should be no such thing as capital gains taxes. If an individual profits and those profits were not already taxed once – then that money is income and should be taxes just like anyone else’s income.
With respect to the 28.5 non-corporate businesses in the US. The best answer there to deal with them much as corporations. Divorce the business from the person with respect to taxes.
If I have a business that makes 100K in 2017 that money should not be taxed at all.
Until I as an individual pay it to myself. If I keep it in the business, it is investment, just like a corporation and should not be taxed.
This also means that all businesses – corporations or otherwise should be scrutinized for ONE and only ONE thing – untaxed transfers to individuals.
If my business provides me a car – the personal use of that car is income.
If my business pays my health insurance – that should be reported as personal income.
And when I say zero deductions – I am serious.
I am absolutely against Rubio and increasing the dependent deduction.
We do not want kids to be a tax break. We do not want health care to be a tax break.
We do nto want anything to be a tax break. We want people to make all life choices without even considering the tax implications – because there should be none.
If we want healthcare to improve – people have to pay for it, and they must pay what it costs.
Because the ONLY thing that drives prices down is the demand of consumers for lower prices.
Competition as an example is a 2nd order effect,. Competition does nto drive prices down.
The fact that consumers want lower prices, and competition provides another way to get them drives prices down.
Absolutely everyone should pay some taxes. That is necescary otherwise the incentives of government are very bad.
No business of any kind should pay any taxes. All business profits find their way in to the pockets of PEOPLE, and when they do they should be taxed as income.
If business taxes are litterally ZERO then the entire question of busines tax deductions becomes:
What business expenditures are actually transfers to individuals.
The only thing business should be reporting is perqs, and those should be reported as income to the person receiving them.
Further I want the US business tax environment to be BETTER than europe.
Countries compete on a tax basis too. Our lowering our business taxes will force other countries to do so to.
With respect to arguments such as “a family of four will pay more/less”
I do not care. the objective is to clear as much distortion from the tax code as possible.
There will be specific winners and losers.
But even saying there are winners and losers presumes that what we have now is neutral.
I love my children. Children should not be a tax break. Healthcare should not be a tax break.
Nothing should be a tax break.
Eliminate all deductions and subsidies.
Then lower and flatten the rates as much as possible.
Most of us will pay very nearly the same. But taxes will no longer distort our choices.
Libertarians support cutting govenrment and cutting taxes,
And we grasp that doing so will benefit nearly everyone – including rich senators
What someone else made – absent using force or Fraud is theirs – not governments,
Regardless of how you wish to characterize it.
Bob Corker is entitled to keep as much of his money as he can
He is entitled to do so whether he is republican or democrat.
The conflict here is the remaining 99 Senators who have no “skin in the game” deciding what Bob Corker gets to keep.
Would that more Senators voted to keep govenrment out of theirs and everyone else’s pockets.
Ron P:
I thought you thought reducing the deficit was top priority?
Corker said he wouldn’t vote for the bill if it increased the deficit.
Then flip flopped after the deficit increasing provision was added that ‘coincidently’ will enrich him.
“Starting in 2013, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback undertook what was described by The Atlantic in a June 2017 article as the United States’ “most aggressive experiment in conservative economic policy”.[10] From 2013 to 2017, 300,000 businesses as pass-through income entities, benefited from the complete tax exemption. [T]ens of thousands of Kansans were able to “claim their wages and salaries as income from a business rather than from employment.”[11] Brownback’s tax overhaul created pass-through income tax exemptions as well as trimming income tax, eliminating some corporate taxes.[10] From 2013 to 2017, Kansas experienced budget shortfalls culminating in a $350 million budget shortfall in February 2017, which “threatened the viability of [the state’s] schools and infrastructure”.[10] In response, in June 2017, the drastic tax cuts were rolled back to 2013 levels.[10]
By 2017, pass-through businesses earned the “majority of business income” in the United States and “owners of S-corporations and partnerships now earn about half of all income from businesses.”[8]
According to a September 2017 article in the New York Times, about “95 percent of companies in the United States are structured as pass-through entities, generating the bulk of the government’s tax revenues.”[12”
Jay. can someone tell me what I am doing wrong in my communications? I thought I said that about 28 million of the 31 million business were pass through corporations and now you have done the same thing Dave does and completely stated the same thing over again.
I thought I also said I favored the pass through companies paying the same rate as the corporations. Where did I say I favored the pass through companies not paying anything like the Kansas system? If I said that I was having a brain fart because you can not eliminate taxes on 95% of businesses and not have a huge revenue problem. Common sense tells you that!
I thought I also said I favored cutting expenses in entitlements and general fund expenses, using a portion of that for real middle class cuts and applying the rest to the debt and deficit. If I did not say that, please let me know.
And your point in the original comment was about corker and his benefiting from legislative changes. Did I not asked you if legislators should be required to not vote for anything that may benefit them when it benefits a huge portion of our citizens?
So I will state my positions one more time in short comments to avoid any interpretation issues.
1. I support corporate tax reform. It stops the movement of companies to Ireland, EU, Canda etc. ( Slide show: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/10-iconic-us-companies-that-have-moved-headquarters-abroad.html?slide=1)
2. I support pass through income to be taxed at the same rate as corporations. Why should a private citizen pay 44%, while GM pays 21%?
3. I support entitlement reform. Increase the retirement age, means test Medicare, reform Medicaid, eliminate tax refunds to those who pay no taxes, reduce all government spending by 1% of the prior years budget/expenses(which ever was lower) for 10 years and fully justify any government programs that cost the tax payers more than $500K per year using predefined policies that private enterprise uses to justify expenses.
(as a note, if Warren Buffett goes into the hospital and wants to pay his bill himself, it is illegal for him to do that. The hospital has to bill Medicare and then he can make a donation to the hospital. Why do the tax payers have to cover the cost for billionaires).
This all may not solve the debt and deficit problem, but I bet it would be one hell of a start!
If you require that congressmen recuse themselves from any bill that might effect them.
They could not vote on anything.
Most certainly they could never vote on anything tax related.
You can evaluate the information regarding Corker and this legislation and decide your impression of him in that regard,
I do not personally know whether I think his choices were made based on personal interest.
I do not like the tax reform as it is. I am angry about it because it may be a generation before we get to attempt this again.
But that said what is being done is better than what exists, for all its flaws, and in my view there are many.
If Corker voted for something that is somewhat better than what we have because of personal interest – I guess I can live with that.
“Why do the tax payers have to cover the cost for billionaires?”
Why do taxpayers have to cover the cost for anyone ?
“Did I not asked you if legislators should be required to not vote for anything that may benefit them when it benefits a huge portion of our citizens?”
They should be required to PUBLICALLY inform the voters of any financial benefits to them or families BEFORE voting, so their constituents have time to respond.
That’s why ALL elected officials who vote on financial matters effecting them should be required to release their income taxes on taking office. Which reminds me, Ron: 🤬🤬🤬
Where the fux are tRUMPS TAXES!!!
Why aren’t you DEMANDING he release them?
I could give a rats ass about Trumps taxes. So he releases them and it shows he is worth a fraction of his bloviation or he has made billions from investments around the world. People knew he did not release them before the election and still voted for him.
I DID NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. but they cared less if he did or didnt. They voted him in!
As your hero stated, “what difference does it make”?
As for legislators voting for something, they are going to vote for it regardless of their constituents positions. Just ask those in San Fran and Pelosi’s voting record.
In the context of the comment tRUMPs taxes were not about his Bloviating net worth; but to determining if legislation he sponsors will increase it.
If you don’t care when politicians enrich themselves through legislation they pass, you’re on some scrambled wavelength of thought beyond my cognition.
So Trump should not do anything that is good for the country if he personally might benefit ?
We all benefit from a growing economy.
Or we should have flat taxes with zero deductions and no subsidies, so that it would not matter.
Or we should have a line item veto so that if a rep or senator got a provision specifically benefiting them or some small group – there would be a risk that it would be removed by the president
There are myriads of ways to end this nonsense that do not require disclosure.
Regardless, if you want public disclosure of elected officials – get it enacted as law.
I can tell you that locally it has proven to be disasterously bad policy.
In the decades we have had it, it has been nearly impossible to get business leaders to take unpaid roles in local government. As a result we get people who are clueless.
Who do you want trying to manage a public 10M budget ? The CEO fo a 20M company or some guy that can’t balance his bank account ?
Brownback’s experiment in Kansas was economically successful and a political failure.
Though the claim that it was agressive is nonsense. The reduction in taxes was miniscule the economic benefits were real and measurable, but in scale with what one would expect from a small tax decrease.
The budget shortfalls were PURELY a consequence of political failure.
The tax cut was pass with the expectation that government spending would have to be cut.
Democrats in Kansas as well as some republicans fought those spending cuts.
Ultimately brownback gave up. States are required to balance their budgets – unlike the federal government, shortfalls can not continue indefinitely.
After the Brownback Tax Cut, the Kansas economy grew faster than forecast.
After the first round of tax increases – in late 2014 not 2017 Kansas’s economy grew much slower than forecast.
The bottom line is you have a choice between government spending and rising standard of living.
In Kansas the politicians ultimately picked government spending to the detriment of the people of Kansas.
It does not take that much intelligence to grasp the stupidity of raising taxes in Kansas.
The entire premise that Btownback actually failed – requires beleiving that the people of Kansas were better off when the politicians chose how to spend their money, than when they chose themselves.
Most of us grasp that is nonsense.
I get so tired of this left wing word game nonsense.
A “pass through entity” is just another name for “not a corporation”.
The profits for any business that is not a corporation, are income for the owner(s).
I own an apartment building. I add all the revenue of those apartments and subtract all the expenses and the result is the profits of those apartments – which is reported to the IRS as a part of my income, just like my W2 employment income, just like the profits from my consulting business.
The “profits”, “pass thru” the business, to become personal income.
You and the NYT report this as if it is some deliberate evil construct to avoid taxes.
What it is, is the way that business has been done for millenia.
95% of businesses did not go out one day and decide “we are going to restructure ourselves as pass-thru entities to avoid taxes”. They did not restructure. They are just ordinary businesses operating in the normal fashion.
Fundimentally even corporations are not different – but for the stupidity of corporate taxes, the profits of a corporation when distributed to owners become income for the owners.
The fundimental issue here is that government and left wing nuts should not be trying to encapsulate value judgements into the tax code.
It is economic idiocy to tax businesses. The purpose of a business is to generate profits FOR PEOPLE, You tax those profits when they become income FOR PEOPLE,
Whatever is done with a business profits that is NOT income for a person, is something that you want to encourage, not discourage.
Further people are responsible to bear the cost of government.
The stupidest tax structure in the world would be to tax all business, and not tax people.
While the harms of increased taxation would be the same because businesses do not vote there would be no constraint on taxes, we would all be greatly harmed.
Regardless, you should not ever tax business, all taxes should be paid for by people.
Either on their income, or on their consumption (not both).
No deductions and flat rates.
Government should NEVER be in the business of deciding what personal choices are taxed and which are not.
Your mortgage should not be tax deductable, your child care should not, your healthcare should not, your retirement savings should not.
It is irrelevant whether your income is “passive” or active, as a result of digging ditches, or clipping coupons, are winning the lottery.
Flat taxes, no deductions,.
We do not want government influencing whether we should have kids, or buy a house.
People who have kids or own homes should not be subsidized by those who choose not.
We should not be attempting to paint labels on specific kinds of income or expenses, pretending that congress should make moral choices about what income should be taxeable and what should not.
How someone makes or spends their money is not the business of congress – or your neighbor.
Unless nearly 100% of income taxes is actually from S Corps, your NYT article is BUNK.
BTW S corps are increasingly rare, Most states now have LLP’s and LLC’s and myriads of other business forms that are simpler than S corps but with the same benefits.
Further a S corp is only different from a partnership in that the owners of an S Corp have their liability limited to their ownership of the corp.
The fundimental reason for corporations (both C and S), and LLP’s and LLC’s is to assure that should the business fail or in some other way create a liability greater than its ability to pay that creditors can not go after the personal assets of the owners. Every other distinction is minor.
We have chosen (stupidly) to tax the profits of C corps directly, and they separately tax those profits AGAIN when they are distributed to owners.
With every single other form of business, the profit of the business becomes income to the owner and is taxed there.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iur/?f=1&image_host=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbpp.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Freport_371px%2Fpublic%2Fatoms%2Ffiles%2F3-4-16tax-policybasics-f1.png%3Fitok%3DCHquVpgR&u=https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_371px/public/atoms/files/3-4-16tax-policybasics-f1.png?itok=CHquVpgR
The problem with the “pass thru” tax rate, actually has to do with the stupid way we tax C corps.
C corps are double taxed. The result is that all changes to corporate taxes rates drive business either to change from S to C or the other way around purely for Tax reasons.
The separate pass through tax rate is stupid. Eliminate special treatment of capital gains, eliminate corporate taxes, and tax all money a person receives – regardless of its source as income.
There was never a need for this complexity. Complexity is merely a mask to hide political profiteering by politicians.
And the left is too stupid to grasp that all change has winners and losers.
Changing from a morally bankrupt tax scheme to one that is less morally bankrupt will have winners and losers. Government ceasing to do what it never should have done in the first place can be framed as harming some and helping others.
At the bottom of all this is that the left completely loathes the fact that anyone manages to do well.
The left wants equality even if it makes all of us more miserable.
The left wants to punish and excoriate those who have been successful.
It litterally wants to criminalize success.
If you looked at the Diedre McClosky video I linked, you would note that,
the entire modern free market economic system, the sudden change from universal poverty to explosive improvement was the consequence of the change in moral values away from success as a vice to success as a virtue. Destroy that and we return to abject poverty.
Tax cuts are an example of reducing government not growing it.
I agree reducing the amount of money government steals from you is beneficial.
I thought you liked Corker ?
Are you going to quit using his anti-Trump remarks now ?
🤬
My New Year’s Wish.
Get Republicans out of office.
Get Democrats in Office.
Tar and Feather tRUMP.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/942515166029238272
What matters is specific contests with specific candidates in specific districtsm and real voters on election day.
We all know that a generic republican is going to lose to a generic democrat 90% of the time in the 200 largest cities in the country.
According the Hillary she should have been ahead by 50pts.
According to 538.com she had a 90% chance of winning right through calling Michigan.
So now we have through Judicial Watch FBI emails – including some of McCabe’s and Comey, commenting that negative press reports on the Clinton email investigation seem to come from internal leaks.
Is anyone else here capable of grasping that if key people in the FBI think that a harmful story is the result of an internal leak, that also means the story is either true or very nearly true.
At the very least it means the story demonstrates knowledge of something that the FBI did not want the public to know.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-peter-strzok-lisa-page-james-comey/
Yes, Greenwald deserves a pulitzer. Further Greenwald is a real life unicorn,
someone pretty far to the left who still does not allow his biases to dictate his reporting.
Beyond that, this article is an excellent summary fo the problems with the left the media, and the DOJ/FBI/Mueller over the past year.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/251387/why-glenn-greenwald-deserves-a-pulitzer-prize
If only Life were that simple!
…and straightforward, and black and white, precise and discernable, and clearly communicable for one person to another!
I’m lamenting above that human existence is tangled and muddied IN GENERAL on many levels. One person’s trash is another person’s treasure. People often aren’t aware of the aggression they are causing, either direct or indirect. One random example is this: How many average civilized people thought nothing of pouring things down the drain in generations past? Paint, turpentine, mineral spirits, cleaning fluids, and all sorts of chemicals. Many times these chemicals went directly to rivers and streams and killed the fish and other facets of the eco-system. We didn’t know. Fishermen who loved to fish whistled happily as they rinsed chemicals down their drains. Even now that we know better, it’s difficult to stop using shampoos and laundry detergents that we know in the back of our minds are ruining some of the waterways. We go to Walmart and buy cheap goods even after we hear of appalling conditions in Chinese factories. Sometimes the aggression is just out of sight, out of mind, until some people stand up, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, as another random example.
Some of the best sex I’ve had started with a woman saying, “No, I’m not interested right now!” to my advances. And then the game of chase, sometimes only verbally, playfully, and sometimes physically from room to room. And then being thanked afterwards with smiles and sighs of satisfaction. (Sorry, I’m just reporting the facts like a journalist, haha!) Yes sometimes the lines are not clear, are they? Sometimes “NO” means “YES!” I’m just saying sometimes the lines are blurry.
When a woman reveals a body part to a man it is apparently very different than a man revealing a body part to a woman, in our society. (I’m not talking about in the workplace.) I think we humans really don’t have a lot of things worked out yet!
DISCLAIMER: This is in no way a justification of force or rape. One must know when to back away.
Pat,
I don’t like quoting Bill Clinton, but as he said: “I feel your pain”. Humanity is so messy. To me the conflict between freedom from government and protection of government is most poignant in the issue of the death penalty. I absolutely believe that there are cases where putting someone to death is entirely justified, however, the chance that a government could abuse the power of the death penalty is too great a risk, and makes me in favor of taking that power from them. Thus an unsolvable quandary in my mind, the power to put someone to death should be only held by those so perfect, and loving, forgiving, and compassionate, that they would never use it. Don’t come into my house at night uninvited because I am not such a person. 🙂
Mike Hatcher
Ha! I’m glad ur castle is defended! And your opinions are weighed and considered. Two of the parts holding this nation together! It’s not Christmas yet, so I will say Happy Holidays!
Mike;
The problem with “I feel your pain” is that we should NEVER make decisions to use force against others based on emotion.
We are each absolutely free to make decisions that do not involve the use of force in out own lives in any way we please. Logic, emotion, ouija boards.
But we can not make decisions involving the use of force that way.
I remember a line from “House of Cards” said by Underwood, played by the recently disgraced actor Spacey. The reporter, Zoe, asks Underwood why he demands sex with her when he could easily get professionals. He answers: “Everything in the world is about sex,..except for sex, sex is about power.” I tell you, that seemed to have such a ring of truth to it. Your latest comment, and more broadly, Rick’s article, at its core is about power. How much does a woman want to have their own power compared to how much, if at all, do they desire men with power over them? I am certain there is a vast array of views on this question from different women, I am not sure a generalized answer is possible.
Mike Hatcher
“…vast array of views…I’m not sure a generalized answer is possible.”
Thank you! That should be our conclusion here more often!
Birds of a feather flock together. We forget how different, often essentially OPPOSITE, different people’s preferences are.
Power is the use of force – that is its defintion in physics, and also in the real world,.
Government is force, the ability to use government is power – that is the only power outside what limited use of force an individual is permitted in their own lives.
Wealth and money are not power, at best they are a means to rent power.
Pat/Mike,
Well, from my own “woman’s perspective,” I think that feminism as it exists right now has really missed the mark, when it comes to creating a world where women have true power.
Right now, things like the #MeToo movement, LGBTQQIAAP (not even kidding http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33278165/we-know-what-lgbt-means-but-heres-what-lgbtqqiaap-stands-for ) rights, and the promotion of the idea that ours is a “rape culture,” have certainly put women in a position to harm men, destroy their careers and make them fearful of interacting with them. And, the idea is often floated that, if only women held positions of power, such as the presidency, we would never again have to deal with these corrupt, sex-crazed men, who have apparently be running rampant for all of these years.
But that presumes that women and men exert power in the same ways, and that has never been true. Beautiful, young women have always known that the way they exert power is through their sexuality… and I don’t mean “just sex”, but the power that can come from beauty ~ opening career doors, acquiring wealth, etc. In fact, the sexual revolution, and its mistaken idea that women and men see sex in the same way, probably did as much as anything to diminish that kind of feminine power.
Anyway, I am pretty certain that, if women were to gain the kind of power that men have traditionally had, they would become just as corrupt, just in different ways. Look at Hillary…there is little question that she enabled Bill’s serial sexual abuse of other women, so that those women wouldn’t destroy him. The dishonesty and malevolence of her kind of “woman-on-woman” abuse is equally corrupt.
Humanity is so messy. And we seem intent upon making it messier!
( And no “woman-on-woman” jokes, Pat!!)
Thanks Priscilla fir your comment. It reminded me of an ancient Biblical story about Potiphar’s wife who attempted to coerce Joseph. Certain tactics have been around a long time and used not just by men. What things have changed over time and what things have remained the same, is to me an intriguing question.
Mike Hatcher
PR: Good first paragraph. Second one, eh.
dduck,
I’m assuming the second paragraph you didn’t care for was my sexual one. I’m talking about consenting adults who know each other, and the age-old games of persuasion, and getting permission. No misconduct and nothing creepy. Obviously men don’t need much to be ready and willing, but even wives in love often need a little more “gaming” to let go a bit. My father would sometimes walk slowly like a deranged maniac toward my mother who would punch him in the arms and scream for him to get away (both of them laughing) and then my brother and I knew it was time to go out and throw a football around at the park, lol. My childhood home was a very happy place and Mom and Pop were married a long, long time. Unless you didn’t care for me talking about it at all, but it is in line with Rick’s post!
“One person’s trash is another person’s treasure”
We do not share the same values, we can not encode into our law values that are not near universal.
“People often aren’t aware of the aggression they are causing”
Libertarians and most dictionaries define aggression as the use of force.
It is irrelevant what you are aware of when you use force. Except as a response to force, you may not use force. You need not consider the impact on others.
If you actually harm others – whether through force or in other ways, you are responsible and much make the other whole, and government can force you to do so.
Your intentions and the use of force distinguish whether your action is criminal or civil, but you are responsible even when the actual harm you cause is unintentional.
Emotional and other non-concrete harms are outside the domain of government. It is impossible to determine if they are real. You remain responsible for them, but government has no role in assessing them, and an allegation of harm by another does not mean that harm occured.
“How many average civilized people thought nothing of pouring things down the drain in generations past? ”
Sorry, Pat, but that does not fly.
No creature exists with zero impact on the environment.
Further your example inverts our values.
Human values are about humans.
We value the environment – for ourselves. The environment has no intrinsic value.
Nothing has a value outside that humans give it.
Everything that humans do destroys something and creates something else.
When we value what is created more than what is destroyed – we are better off standard of living rises.
Cave men shat in the woods, today we are far more careful about our excriment.
This is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of values.
Everything in paint came from nature. Returning it to nature is not inherently evil.
Many people doing so in the same way, can result in diminishing something else we value.
Disposing of paint by pouring it down the drain and by turning it over to waste management are inherently the same – both return it to nature. All that is different is in the latter case we hope that waste management does so in a way that does not cause damage to something we value.
In a century we are likely to think that the ways waste management disposes of things are barbaric. And it will be – by the values we hold in the future. Not by those we hold now.
Further those future values can not exist without a much higher standard of living that we have today.
No cave man, nor any human for 99.99% of human existance could possibly understand your disdain for pouring paint down the drain. Until recently that value was an unaffordable luxury, so unaffordable that it was beyond peoples abilities to conceive of.
The environmental movement was born of human prosperity.
The modern left likes to portray modern man is far more destructive than his predessors.
I wish we had a time machine to transport them back to any other prior era.
Contra the left, all individual humans in the past were far more destructive than those today.
By the 1830’s new england fishermen realized that it was inside their capability to fish to extinction. They devised a voluntary system of property rights that served fishermen for more than a century and a half until government stepped in. Even today vestiges of the voluntary private scheme remain.
The condictions in factories in china are appalling, but the values of a people with a median income of 50+K, they are pretty good for a people with a median income of 11K who less than a generation ago had a median income of 300.
The conditions of factories in Bengeledesch are far worse than those of china – yet textiles are moving from China to Bangeledesh. Because China can no longer produce textiles cost effectively at an 11K/year median income, and Bangeledeshi’s do not need 11K/yr to be many times better off than they were.
We can not expect our neighbor to live by our values, we can not expect the rest of the world to live by our values.
Our values require the standard of living we have acheived. They are not sustainable without that.
If you are dying of thirst in the desert, no value is higher than that of water.
Nearly all our values are relative to our standard of living.
With respect to your remarks on sex, there are two criteria which divide the outcomes into three.
Did you initiate force ? Doing so makes your actions a crime and they fall withing the scope of government.
Were your actions ultimately welcome ? This distinguishes what is moral and what is not.
IF you are the moving party – the responsibility is yours.
There are no absolute rules – short of you may not initiate force.
The distinction between what is harassment and what is pleasurable, rests on your success at persuasions and your judgement in determining whether you can persuade
I have no right to dictate what you can do, just as you can not dictate the intimate conduct others must accept from you. But you are responsible for the outcome.
I would also suggest – I do not know nor posit whether the distinctions are cultural or biological, but traditionally males are initiator’s, they are risk takers and that behavior is present outside of the domain of success.
Taking risks means betting your judgement is sufficient to avoid failure, and taking responsibility when you are wrong.
Men and women do not take risks in the same way. Nor do specific individuals.
Risk taking is dangerous, it is also essential to improving our own lives and those of others.
Finding a mate, forming a family, requires taking risks,
As does creating anything new, improving yourself and the world.
And since human communication is so muddy and problematic, let me say that I’m a big fan of the non-aggression principle as a guiding principle, whenever possible. And let me re-state, for the umpteenth time, that I think government and regulations should be avoided as much as possible, when possible, for the general welfare of a nation. I just don’t go around bashing government in general because I’m able to see past a general principle to the many specific ways that rules, regulations, and government help hold our society, cultures, and civilization together. Amen.
I agree with your qualifications: ‘whenever and as much as possible’ etc.
But that balance seems always to shift to the left or right, not on reason but party affiliation. The Devil is in the Details as they say.
Yes, Jay, you mentioned the B-word, Balance, which is a moving target, as the Founders knew, and as Moderates know. And party affiliations get in the way, as Washington warned us in his Farewell Address.
Pat.
I find this fixation of so many at TNM on “middle”, Balance, disturbing and wrong headed.
While you atleast wisely grasp that the balance is a moving target,
the truth is is ti no target at all.
As I keep re-iterating compromise is a tool not a value.
Taking a half step towards the right answer has value – ONLY if we are actually taking a half step towards the right answer, and that requires reassesment after the compromise.
An understanding that life is not static but dynamic – which is again why we need to be careful about law.
Regardless, if current government spending is 45% of GDP and “optimal” government spending is 20% of GDP a compromise that reduces spending to 40% of GDP is a small positive step.
But if optimal spending is 80% of GDP is its a small negative step.
When we “compromise” we should never stop. We do not “split the difference” and move on.
We split the difference and test the results. If the compromise results in improvement we reassess and take another half step, if it results in decline we move the other way.
Further the entire above process presumes we have absolutely no actual knowledge of what is optimal, that we have competing opinions and those opinions are all equally valid.
That is almost never the case.
Regardless – dynamic compromise, iterative refinment – the actual scientific method, not the consensus garbage sold as science today, will lead to gradual improvement – if not to the absilute truth.
I would further note that the above presumes problems all fall on a single left/right axis.
In the real world they almost never do, problems are multidimensional.
Immigration is a beautiful example.
Today the left is more correct – on a single aspect of immigration, than the right is.
But the problem has multiple axis’s. What we actually know as near the optimal result requires multiple changes while the left seeks only one of those.
The left wants to move a single attribute on a single axis in what is the optimal direction – on that axis, but without making other adjustiments to other attributes on other axises, their approach will make things worse.
While the right is inarguably wrong on that same axis, but at the same time moving in the direction the right advocates will likely result in overall improvement, because so long as we are addressing the issue on only a single axis, moving the wrong direction produces a better outcome.
The point is the middle is atleast as likely to be wrong on any given issue as the right or left, worse presuming that everything falls along a single axis is complete nonsense.
Jay, I agree also. You state “But that balance seems always to shift to the left or right, not on reason but party affiliation. The Devil is in the Details as they say.”
I see nothing wrong with a shift to the left or right. But what we are seeing is not just a shift, it is a radical shift. We end up with Clinton, Sanders and Trump. One is worn out, bought off by donors, insured by super delegates that she would be the nominee because she was entitled, not qualified. Sanders came on strong, but represents the most far left segment of politics, thinking that there is an unlimited amount of money the government can take from society and still grow. And then we have Trump,radically different, whose only qualifications was a big mouth, big ego, unashamed actions and the ability to attract people who are best represented by those that have little repulsion for bigotry, racism, sexism and other anti social behaviors. Had any one of these candidates had a limited field of one or two strong, qualified left of center or right of center candidates running against them from the start, I doubt we would have had the tickets we had.
PatRiot states ” I’m able to see past a general principle to the many specific ways that rules, regulations, and government help hold our society, cultures, and civilization together”.
Most of us also will not bash government based on these criteria. But when we have the over reach of government that we have today, that is when the ones that believe in individual freedoms, liberties and rights come out of the woodwork. Our country was built on these principles that are stated in the constitution. When we lose sight of that one detail, we become Europe. Our presidency is becoming much more like a monarchy with the presidents ability to issue regulatory EO’s compared to EO’s that instruct the administration of legislation to government agencies.
And small government believers will continue to voice their opinions.
Government is what holds our society together – only to the extent that the deviation from critical norms regarding the use of force by a very small portion of us makes society impossible.
Government – all the rules and regulations in the world can not work, if most of us would not have behaved according to those rules – even if they did not exist.
This is an absolutely critical condition of government.
Our laws and regulations must conform not merely to the norms of society, but near universally shared norms. Otherwise government is too costly an inefficient.
The only way modern government – with a near infinite body of law does not collapse under its own weight is because the law is applied with large discretion – in otherwords most of our laws are never enforced.
And the consequence of that is the destruction of the rule of law.
If you have near infinite law then everyone is guilty of something.
Then we have the rule of man not law – prosecutors and police get to choose who and when they will prosecute/persecute.
The rule of law requires few laws, universally supported and little discretion in enforcement.
Today government is the threat to our society, it is what is tearing us apart.
Our most common dividing line is over the extent to which we can use government to impose our will on others.
While I do not like Trump, I find it openly deciptfull to represent Trump as totalitarian – that is the most bass-akwards definition of totalitarian I have ever scene.
Trump is purportedly a totalitarian tearing our society apart by doing what ?
Dismantling those parts of government that have divided us.
Pure democracy means division, the concept of majority rule means division, anything short of rule by near unanimous agreement means division.
We are divided because some of us think it is acceptable to impose their will on others by force.
Too few – even here do not grasp we can not use force against others when a little more than half of us wish to.
It is our willingness to use of force against those who disagree that divides us.
Sorry Ron, but Pat is actually wrong.
Whatever the general principle are they must be nearly universal with rare if any exceptions.
Seeing past the general principles to when something else might be helpful,
is just saying I am willing to fudge the rule of law.
We do not murder people. We have rigid near universally understood rules that determine when a killing is a murder and when it is not.
There is no seeing past the general principle.
If we are loath to even try to find a societal benefit that overrides the general principle that we do not murder, why is it you think we are better able to do so in smaller issues ?
We are not. What Pat is really saying – whether he is cognizant of that or not,
is that we have so bought the nonsense that regulation benefits society that we do not examine that critically. Further regulation is never imposed to benefit society. It is imposed to sate one group of harpies or interests or another – who are claiming a societal benefit without ever bothering to prove it as a means to get their way.
“But that balance seems always to shift to the left or right, not on reason but party affiliation. The Devil is in the Details as they say.”
So many problems.
Regulation endeavors to make dynamic systems static – that is far more than a detail.
There is a bizzare fixation on balance at TNM as if the correct answer to everything is always apriori knowable and always in the middle, and that everything has only a left/right access.
Most of the time we do not know the right answer – though we often know that one direction is better than another. Regardless, the odds of the =correct answer being in the middle are infinitesimal and most problems are multidimensional not one dimensional.
Top down solutiions are fragile, they are static, they do not endure change well.
The devil is in the details and the details are infinite.
I recently read an article in NYT by the economist Robert Schiller – who is one of those who predicted the housing bubble collapse.
Schiller noted that neurologists has found that humans do not use the parts of their brain that are used for mathematics and calculation when thinking about ambiguous problems.
Schiller used that as the basis to attack economic rational expectations theory.
But I had a different thought – most human (and even animal) problem solving is NOT algorithmic, it is heuristic. Heuristic problem solving is just as rational as algorithmic problem solving.
Heuristic problem solving is interative, it is trial and error, it is the scientific method, postulate, test, revise, repeat.
Regulation presumes that human problem solving is inherently static and algorithmic.
I agree generally.
“I’m able to see past a general principle to the many specific ways that rules, regulations, and government help hold our society, cultures, and civilization together. Amen.”
That is nothing more than a vague assertion, and I would argue that it is likely false.
It is not sufficient to beleive that “regulation” is beneficial.
People believed the earth was flat, they believed that the sun revolved arround the earth.
People beleive as “common sense” myriads of things that are false.
I doubt that you can take any regulation and demonstrate anything beyond that its first order impacts are net positive.
A permutation of Newton’s third law applies to nearly everything.
When you are one way, when government acts one way the consequence quite often is a counter action in very nearly the opposite direction.
When government taxes us, we look for loopholes – that is not a crime, it is a natural reaction.
But this is not merely an action followed by a response, but an action, and a response, and a response to the response and further through a near infinite chain.
When you act privately and the response is worse than expected – you change your actions,
Private activity is a sequences of continuous adjustments to shift towards the desired outcome.
Public action pretty much never works that way.
Government lobs a regulatory grenade and the private world must adapt to it.
No one goes back ans says – did this work ? And even if they do, no one ever goes back and says, what do we need to do to make it work better.
If you wish to bother the evidence is out there, likely every regulation that you think produces good results has myriads of negative results you have never even thought of.
Some things that most of us have thought as good for a century are finally being analyzed and the negative impacts exposed.
Zoning and land use regulations have been demonstrable disasters.
Licensing laws are nothing more than means denying opportunity to those at the bottom.
The people who initially imposed Minimum wage laws were acting overtly racist, and we know that is the effect, yet purpotedly enlightened people despite nearly a century of data claim that failing to enact minimum wage laws – that we know will punish the poor, minorities, the least able to afford the loss of a job the most.
I stopped by my local McD’s a few days ago, it now has 1 cash register and 4 floor to ceiling kiosks for ordering. While this was inevitable, it is certainly expedited by the threat of labor cost increases.
Pat, I do not think you can come up with a regulation that I can not find documented negative side effects that you have never considered.
But by far the worst problem with regulation – is not the inverse responses.
It is the regulation always forecloses possibilities.
It is impossible to measure the value of what might have been, but for regulation.
That impossibility does NOT allow us to presume there was no loss.
Better wording for me to write “…and partisan politics” gets in the way as Washington warned, rather than “party affiliation,” as certainly one can be affiliated with a party and still be a reasonable person.
When you and I are working out how to live together as neighbors – that is where “reasonableness” is an important value.
When you are discussing the use of force against others – expecting them to “reason with you” is wrong.
Should the jews have been reasonable with hitler.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
Government is not about “reason”, it is about force,. When is it justified, when is it not.
The unjustified use of force is never reasonable.
Words matter, pretending that government is something other than force allows us to discuss it in the same way we would voluntary social negotiations.
We work things out with our neighbors, we reach agreements, we behave “reasonably”.
We are not forced to do so and because the relationship is voluntary we are free to re-assert our rights if we choose, we compromise – because we benefit from the compromise, and because we are always free to walk away if it becomes abusive.
The language and methods that apply to voluntary free association do not apply to govenrment – because government is force, because you can not choose not to assert a right with government, you either have it or you have lost it forever.
Jay, is this where you want your $1M or so in tax revenues going?
And you wonder why I am so fired up about deficits? When they have to cannibalize other military hardware like planes to keep some operational because prior congressional budgets funded social give away programs andscrewed up DOJ funding, this is a complete joke?
Some billion dollar plane crashes because they may not have new parts, but at least we got our name on a CUP car for PR reasons. Where the hell is commons sense in that?
Ron;
I am with you EXCEPT:
I am going to cut spending.
I am going to cut the social safetynet – to nothing if I can.
I am going to cut Military spending – by atleast 1/2.
If that means we can not afford billion dollar aircraft – I do not think that is so bad.
I do not doubt we have the most incredible military int he world and that we can defeat most any enemy we wish at easy with little loss of our own life.
I do not doubt that reducing military spending will cost lives.
But the same is true in reverse – we could spend twice what we do now and save even more of our own soldiers lives.
But ultimately everything has a value – including human life.
IF we spend another $1T/year on military and that reduces our losses by 50% – that may be a painful choice, but it is still not worth it.
If we spend half what we do now, there will be several effects:
We will have to think much more carefully about intervening in the affairs of other countries.
When we do it will cost less in money and more in human life – and again we will have to think harder.
We already have a military that is inarguably far more capable than anything on earth.
While that may be nice, it is not necescary.
I fully understand that the US cutting military spenidng will likely make the world more dangerous and volatile.
I do not care – or better put, I am not willing to spend everything I own to make the world a bit safer mostly for others.
I keep trying to get everyone here to understand that everythbing we want is paid for by everything we create.
So let me try differently – it requires a 20+T economy to afford a $1T military and the benefits that brings.
We would likely not blink at a $1T military if we had a $40T economy.
This is true about the military, it is true about health care it is true about the environmnet, it is true about everything.
There is very very very little that government must do.
There is not a lot more than individuals must do.
Everything beyond that bare minimum must – and it is actually quite small,
is paid for out of what we produce.
The absolute limit to military spending is the total value we produce.
The relative limit is the portion of what we produce we are willing to devote the the military.
Are you prepared to give 1 in every 16 dollars you make to the military ?
Dave, in many of your thought I agree. but this comment “But ultimately everything has a value – including human life.
IF we spend another $1T/year on military and that reduces our losses by 50% – that may be a painful choice, but it is still not worth it.”
just about convinces me that your are as radically nuts as those who supported Clinton, Sanders and Trump.
There is no way in hell I would ever support cutting the military more than we already have and expect them to protect us. If you want to cut military spending and you don’t want to live under a different form of government, then you go put your ass on the line with inferior body armor, ineffective weapons. insufficient support and untrained soldiers on the front line.
I am totally convinced that we waste billions each year and nobody gives a damn until it ends up impacting them. I also believe we waste millions on defense because of incompetent management in government. But there is one thing I totally believe in and that is our soldiers, even the brass that sits behind mahogany desks taking credit for operations that are effective and loss of life is minimum. Those kids have your back, my back and even those that demonstrate against them.
I buy the Libertarian principles in many respects, but I think you are out to lunch on this thinking. Sorry you have such a low regard for human life protecting you.
Ron;
We could reduce our military to a tiny fraction of its current size and still be able to protect ourselves.
I am not some radical nutcase. While I have not done any military work in several years,
For 2 years my work was entirely military related. I produced software that was used in GWII.
Subsequently I have worked on JTTRS, and Aegis, with JPL, and LL, and with SIAC.
I am not ignorant of our military, its value and out needs.
At the top of our priorities list right not should be ABM’s.
Various Patriot like systems like AEGIS and THAAD are important, in most uses they end up chasing their target which means they must launch fast reach terminal speed fast and the target must launch slow and reach terminal speed slow.
We have such systems deployed near NK right now, These are the most reliable systems we have, but in a target chasing arrangement there is about 2min at most to determine whether a potential target is a real threat, after that you will never catch it.
The next systems we have are the ground based systems in CA and AK.
These also have a race condition, they must launch and catch the target before it MIRV’s – if we are dealing with a MIRV, and generally have to hit the target near appogee in space.
There is a great deal of debate right now about how capable these systems are.
The low estimate is 50/50. The odds are if NK lauches at the US that is what would have to stop them today.
What we do not have – or atleast are not admitting to is a space based ABM. I beleive we are barred those by Treaties. Regardless, these are the gold standard. These provide (in theory) by far the most relible operation the largest amount of decision making time and the highest probability of getting the target at the lowest cost.
We need to spend money on that NOW. We need a space based system above the Pacific and above the mediterain at a minimum.
And we need to pay for that YESTERDAY
We are not going to stop Russia or China with these, but it is reasonable to expect that if we continue to develop and improve such systems we can get ahead and stay ahead of IRAN and NK,
We also can potentioally expand to being able to deal with Pakistan and India.
So no I am not against military spending or keeping us safe.
With respect to other things – we had a 600 ship Navy with Reagan. We have a 200 ship navy now. But those ships are radically different. A current Aegis Frigate has no real equal in the world, it is smaller, faster and more capable than the Aegis Crusiers in the late 80’s
But these are Frigates that means realtively cheap and small.
Today the most fundimental problem with our navy is that it is incredibly capable and ridiculously expensive. The odds are a Carrier Battle Group can withstand an all out attach by the Russians and be 50% capable after the attack, and no nation in their right mind wants to be on the receiving end of a Carrier Battle Group. We have 13 state of the art CGB’s right now. Total number in the rest of the world ZERO. Brittian and France have some Carrier capablity – about equal to the US 40 years ago. Russia has one Carrier that is not as capable as other US carriers I did nto even count, and I think the Russians sold their to the Chinese.
I would also note it takes decades to build a navy, it is not just about ships it is an entire naval mindset. Germany had excellent paper navies in WWI and WWII in reality they were Crap.
The Russian were wiped out by the Japanese between the wars.
The Japanese started WWII with likely a better navy than ours.
The British had the worlds best Navy through to WWII, they are still formidable today, but meaningless in comparison to the US Navy. Russia has never been a naval power.
They do nto have the ships or the Training. The last time China had a meaningful Navy was 1500.
We could mothball 3/4 of our current navy and still no other nation in the world could touch it.
The purpose of 13 CBG’s is to always have a CBG in every critical part of the world – usually 2 in the mideast and still have enough extra to allow rotating sailors and ships home regularly.
All that said you could wipe the entire current US navy off the face of the earth recommission a fraction of what we have mothballed, and still dominate the entire world.
What would be the difference ? The survival rate of the mothballed fleet would be far lower in a conflict. It would also be far cheaper in treasure but far more expensive in blood.
And that line is the real point – which applies to the entire military. We can go backwards many many years in our military equipment and technology and still dominate any battlefield in the world. But if we do so, and a serious conflict emerges, we will be paying in blood rather than treasure.
US casulaties in WWII were about 400,000. That was with 1/3 the current population.
Vietnam was 55K, the Mideast is about 5,000 todate.
That change is what we are buying for $1T/year.
If you can tolerate vietnam level casualties IF there was a serious conflict
and accept that any serious conflict will quickly require reinstating the draft,
we can reduce the cost of the military to about 1/3 of what it is now – and buy the ABM capability I am talking about.
There is also a lot of bitching about maintance and readiness right now. Much of that is justified – though we would be shocked at how rapidly readiness would rise if a serious conflict arose.
We are not motivated to maintain readiness.
The other factor in readiness is the grind that the mess in the mideast adds to the military,
Today we are also adding NK to the list or what is wearing us down.
We keep having collisions out in that general area. A large factor in that is the necescity to keep Aegis systems on station near NK.
If we get the hell out of Afghanistan and are more restrained in our interventions in the rest of the mideast readiness with rise dramatically.
North Korea is anybodies guess.
Regardless my point is the high cost of our current military is because we can project serious power anywhere (and several places) in the world simultaneously.
AND we do constantly. The more restrained we are the less expensive the military is.
The more time we are willing to give ourselves to deploy the less expensive it is.
The more willing we are to trade blood for treasure – the less expensive it is.
We are capable of handling any possibility at 1/3 the current spending.
But doing so will have far higher military casuties.
Ultimately everything has value – even human life.
We spent nearly 500,000 lives during the Civil War.
Personally I think it would be a good thing it the cost in blood were higher.
Little restrains our government from thoughtless military action more than the political cost of dead and injured soldiers.
We never would have remained in Afghanistan had it cost more in blood, and we should have left when the Taliban was evicted.
Obama’s intervention in Libya has destablized the entire mideast – particularly north africa, and proven very costly to US.
We never should have gotten involved in Syria.
We like to beleive we make things better, btu we often make things worse.
The US involvement unified opposition to Assad under ISIS – wasn;t that a good thing ?
Whether military or otherwise the record of US intenventions world wide has been extremely poor.
We are getting very good at war. We suck at diplomacy. We suck at unconventional interventions. But the other thing we are really really really good at that changes the world more than anything – is commerce.
If you want to bring down Cuba – trade with them.
Trade with China transformed our relationship to 1.3B people, their relationship to us and pretty much the entire world in an unbeleivably positive way.
If you want my position on war, diplomacy, trade, …. Read Washington’s farewell address,
and maybe follow it with Eisenhowers.
I am not interventionist. We are not the policemen of the world. We have no business in the internal squabbles of other countries – no matter how vile they are.
We are obligated to defend our allies – and they us. But we should take care not to make the entire world our ally.
When one nation agresses against another, we are not obligated to intervene, but we should consider it and the threat should be ever present.
But the role of our military is to defeat enemies.
And that is it. Defeat them and leave.
The government of any nation is the responsibility of the people.
When that government agresses against us or our allies we can destroy that government.
It is the responsibility of the people of that nation to rebuild – not us.
“I buy the Libertarian principles in many respects, but I think you are out to lunch on this thinking. Sorry you have such a low regard for human life protecting you.”
Everything has a value – including human life.
Pretending that it does not – just means someone else gets to decide.
Given that HHS uses the value of 225K for a human life for making its policy decisions – I would prefer to set the value of my life myself.
Regardless, if you pretend human life has infinite value – that means what really happens is government assigns it a low value.
I think it is those unwilling to confront that human life has a value that do not value human life.
Further because the cost to use has become very low, we are more inclined to use the military.
Do you think Obama would have done anything in Libya if it would have meant the death of 5,000 US soldiers ?
I do not know what would have happened had the US not intervened – but whatever happened it would not have been our responsibility.
Ron P,
I agree it is okay for things to move left or right as need be. I also agree that current Big Govt overreach has caused many to become more anti-government. Venezuala is a good current example to scare the bejesus out of people who misunderstand govt overreach and socialism. But that means the problem is overreach and too much govt, not govt itself. We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. And I’m glad we have indoor hot water and showers so we don’t have to share bath water! Many things HAVE INDEED gotten better!
Pat, yes we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water. But there is good government and bad government, I my world, which is different than the one that Dave wants, I want government involved in some things. I want government involved in making sure elevators don’t breakdown and plunge multiple floors. I want government inspecting fair rides to insure safety. Dave will say he does not want this, that we can sue the company if they have mechanical failures and something happens. but for some reason, i would rather be poor and know that elevator is going to get me up and down instead of me being killed and my family getting a few bucks from the company causing my death. (I am selfish in my want to live for a few more years)
But bad government causes more problems than good government provides. I won’t list stuff, but there are things daily if we pay attention where government has caused someone a problem at not fault of their own.
Ron,
the most fundimental difference between your world and mine is that you believe that government can and does things that it can’t.
We both agree that elevators plunging is bad.
I understand that rising standard of living means getting more of what we value – including a cleaner safer world.
We do nto get a cleaner safer world – because governmet forces hostile businesses to give it to us.
We get it because what markets always do is deliver to us the things that we want the the extent our current standard of living can pay for.
If we want safe elevators enough that is what we will get.
AS I have noted time and again nations accross the world – with completely different degress of regulation have ultimately evolved much as we have – at the same standard of living.
A country may destroy its environment in an effort to raise its standard of living, but once that standard of living reaches a certain point, it wants clean water, clean air, safer workplaces, ….
And those things happen. They happen when there are laws.
They happen when there are not.
The happen because people want them and because they can afford them.
And they do not happen until they are affordable.
Pat;
There are no anarchists here, so lets not conflate limited government with no government.
There are a few specific tasks that government must do – those tasks that require the use of force and are essential.
I have outlined them before.
Historically governmnet has managed those tasks for about 3% of GDP.
I would stop right there.
Regardess, it is still reasonable to expect that whatever more you have government do, you MUST demostrate that it delivers value equall to what is spent, and that it accomplishes the purpose promised.
Those criteria alone if actually enforce will limit government to just those core functions I address repeatedly,
Because despite your claims otherwise, it is not obvious that government delivers benfits to us.
Polls show that people beleive on average that government wastes more than 50% of what it spends. And data from economist Robert Barro demonstrates that is closer to 65-75% of what is spent is actually wasted.
Government rarely if ever delivers a benefit of value greater than its cost.
Quite often government actually delivers negative value – spending makes things worse.
We do not have faith in government today – because government has justifiably lost our faith.
Many things have gotten better.
That has been the trend in the west for over 400 years, and throughout all of the world for the last 50.
Little if any of that is a consequence of what government has done.
Though in many countries a huge portion has been the result of what government has not done – china as an example.
Good points, Priscilla. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I think you often achieve objectivity rather than slant. Maybe go with “woman against woman” rather than “on” to keep some of us focused, haha.
“Woman against woman.” I like that one better, anyway…more precise. 😊
🤬 The Feeb Takes A Sip
Jay;
This type of political porn is little better than hoping for an assassination.
I think you are engaged in wishful thinking – wishing dimensia on someone is pretty evil, regardless, I doubt you are right, but there is no need to argue.
If Trump is developing a problem it will get worse – probably rapidly, and it will be obvious something quickly.
We Might have had an issue with Reagan towards the end of his 2nd term – but he was doing little at the time and not often in public.
Trump loves the spotlight, he has been campaigning continuously since 2015.
He can not hide a serious problem for long without people noticing.
“He can not hide a serious problem for long without people noticing”
Duh! People, LOTS OF THEM, are noticing.
Don’t YOU read the posted links, LOTS OF THEM, from qualified doctors, who have been pointing to the SYMPTOMS of mental disorder?
Your instinct is to discard any opinion contrary to your own. To do that you’ll attack the message, the messenger, the medium with the self-satisfied smugness of the opinionated sanctimonious bully.
As to my wishing dimensia on ‘tRUMP , why don’t you check with that reporter he made fun of on national tv to see how he feels about poetic justice.
“Duh! People, LOTS OF THEM, are noticing.
Don’t YOU read the posted links, LOTS OF THEM, from qualified doctors, who have been pointing to the SYMPTOMS of mental disorder?”
It is professional malpractice to diagnose a patient without actually examining them in person.
I place little weight on the oppinion of doctors committing malpractice.
Regardless, I think you are wrong, I think you are engaged in wishful thinking – and that you would wish dementia on someone is pretty disturbing.
I think you and those you cite are seeing what you want to see in the ordinary mistakes that are part of life.
But it is possible you are right – if so, we will not need internet doctors commiting malpractice to diagnose this.
Actual Alzheimers moves slow and Trump could possibly make it through 8 years without reaching incompetence.
But other forms of dimensia can move very fast.
My father went from fully functional to unable to care for himself to dead in 2 1/2 years.
My instinct is to be skeptical. Science is skeptical, logic is skeptical, reason is skeptical.
I agree with you that all this “evidence” might point to some form of demensia.
Might is not does. Might means there is a small probability it is true.
I am attacking your logic and your argument, not your person.
“As to my wishing dimensia on ‘tRUMP , why don’t you check with that reporter he made fun of on national tv to see how he feels about poetic justice. ”
I would suggest looking further into that case.
This was not some “gimp” reporter. This was a highly credentialed reporter who engaged in false and vicious attacks. Trump always punches back twice as hard. He does not throw the first punch. I do not always agree with what he does or says. But if you do not want to be a trump target – do not go after Trump. I think it is quite reasonable to expect that if you go after someone – they will go after you.
You seem to have a weird idea what poetic justice means.
“It is professional malpractice to diagnose a patient without actually examining them in person.”
More blah blah.
Poo Poo isn’t a patient, dummy.
He’s a public figure being assessed by professionals, all of whom noted he wasn’t a patient.
DOZENS have made these diagnosis from a distance, and not one case has been reported of any of them under review for malpractice.
In other words, you’re spouting nonsense, once again.
God forbid professional ethics should interfere with the Trumpocalypse
Or that you might consider that ethical rules tend to have real world justification – like avoiding stupid mistakes. But since you seek to desparately rush into stupid mistakes, trusting others who have made obvious ethical mistakes would be natural
There is no “public figure” exception to ethics.
Or even reality.
As a Software developer I would never attempt to comment on the quality of the source code of another software developer after observing only the external execution of that software.
I can make guesses – but they are just guesses.
They do not represent informed professional judgement.
The bottom line is that even a professional can not make a credible judgement of something that requires an indepth examination merely from public glimpses.
The number of people who have made the same stupid mistake is just doubling down on a fallacious stupid appeal to invalid authority.
Unless Trump files a malpractice claim – they are not likely to be under review.
If you rape someone and they do not report it, does that mean you did not commit rape ?
If dozens of people do something stupid – is it less stupid ?
Regardless, the most fundimental issue hear is that you are actually hoping for something bad to happen to someone.
More evidence of moral bankruptcy.
Ron P. you said:
“(as a note, if Warren Buffett goes into the hospital and wants to pay his bill himself, it is illegal for him to do that. The hospital has to bill Medicare and then he can make a donation to the hospital.”
What are you referring to? I did a little bit of Google searching and found nothing even close to such a statement.
Mike Hatcher
Mike you are right, there will not be any search results on this subject. I think the only place that billing rule can be found is in the CMS billing manual and it is hundreds of pages long. You have to be a Patient Accounts Manager, consultant or a very smart CFO at a hospital to find it. Searching in government documents is not easy. Most of the time one of the managers will call the Baltimore CMS office and ask for a ruling on something.
So I am going to see if I can track down a consultant friend of mine and find out if he knows where to find that rule. And it could have changed since I retired, but I have seen nothing in updates from my professional organization to indicate anything changed.
Before I left the hospital, at a board meeting the members were talking about updates to the Medicare program and one of the retired CEO’s of a furniture company stated that he tried to pay his hospital charges and did not want the Medicare program billed. He was told that was not possible, that due to the fact he was covered, it was against CMS policies to allow that to happen. If he wanted to donate a like amount to the building fund, he could do that.
I will let you know what I find out.
Why does this criticism seem right!
https://twitter.com/rf_p0tus/status/942824684491505664
🤬
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/clapper-on-trumps-call-with-russian-prez-putin-knows-how-to-handle-an-asset/
The same James Clapper who lied under oath to Congress and in public to the american people, and would have done so forever but for Eric Snowden ?
And you beleive that the president of the united state – the most powerful person in the world is going to have his strings pulled by some 2nd world dictator ?
You and Clapper beleive in unicorns.
Since being inaugurated Trump honoring his campaign promises has done more real harm to Russia that all the sanctions that Obama imposed.
If Trump is a Putin puppet – why did he approve DAPL or KXL ?
Why is he working to expand offshore drilling and drilling in federal lands ?
Why did he obliterate the airforce of a Putin puppet state ?
Why did he change the rules of engagement in the mideast to allow US pilots to shoot down Russians if they interfered ?
Trump has worked with and even helped Russia on many things – things that are in OUR interests,
It is the Obama administration that behaved bizarrely, helping Russia against our interests, and harming russia when it was in our interests to help.
Mostly I think Trump has done very well thus far with Foreign policy.
He has let the world know we will act unilaterally in our own interests.
He has let the world know will will act bilaterally in the interests of ourselves and our allies.
He has let the world know that we do stand behind our allies and friends and that the era of stabbing them in the back is over. That being an ally and friend to the US comes with benefits, that our word is meaningful.
Contra the left he has diminished Russia’s global influence – though as a side effect of pursuing ours, not as an objective.
The mideast is incredibly difficult and remains so. I do not agree with all that he has done their.
But it is still inarguable, that our dealings in the MidEast are improving, and that most of that is a consequence of Trump.
North Korea poses a very serious threat.
I can not say that I agree ot disagree with what Trump is doing, because I do not think anyone has the answer. Regardless, his doing something – which none of his predecessors have done.
Further in myriads of ways he has improved our relationship with China. China is increasingly doing what the US wants.
You talk about one nation running another as an asset, The difference between Obama and Trump in China is night and day.
🤬 atta Boy, no condolences for the victims (and it ain’t even Puerto Rico).
Didn’t you cut the budget for RR safety by a couple of hundred million?
Jimmy carter completely deregulated the near bankrupt US rail system and from its ashes we now have by far the best and cheapest freight system in the world. It works so well you do not hear about it at all.
Unfortunately Carter could not do the same for passenger rail.
As a consequence we have the horrible mess called Amtrak.
The solution is simple. Sell Amtrak and get the government entirely out of the rails,
I would note that the WA derailment was on a new route that had just had millions of dollars of upgrades and inspections. The initial indications are the train was going to fast – human error.
Regardless, I oppose increased infrastructure spending.
We played that stupid game with ARRA. It does not work.
Rails as I noted are simple – get government out of the rails business.
Most of our rail infrastructure is maintained quite well by the private freight system.
Amtrak substantially benefits from that, getting prioritiy on and free use of tracks that are entirely maintained privately.
But Amtrak also runs on a significant body of track that is purely for passenger trains and that is poorly maintained, further Amtrak’s rolling stock is poorly maintained.
Why ? Because government has always be an abysmal steward of its assets.
The left rants about Scott Pruitt at EPA. Because “argh ! Global Warming!”
Pruitt is getting EPA out of the CO2 business, just like the FCC, if congress wants EPA to regulate CO2, congress must authorize that.
Pruitt is also getting EPA out of this WOTUS nonsense – where the federal government has extended its authority of every puddle in the country. Again without congressional authority.
BUT Pruitt is actively moving EPA back to focus and accomplish something on things that are part of its real mission. Superfund sites which have been ignored for decades are getting cleaned up. When he is done we will be at far less risk of digoxin or nuclear releases into our water and environment.
One superfund site remains from the Manhattan project – know one knows what is in it or what may leak out. Pruitt is the first to attempt to move forward on cleaning it up.
Trump cut spending for long distance Amtrak routes that can not compete and cost far more than airtravel to divert funds to short haul routes – like the NEC that are cost effective compared to airtravel, and heavily traveled, he also increased Amtrak funding of State rail.
Luckily, I won’t be around when the shit hits the GOP fan.
Your citing Krugman ?
Can you name anything that Krugman has been right about since his Nobel on trade – which he now routinely argues against ?
I mean for god’s sake the man was owned by Ron Paul in a debate on economics!.
He proved completely clueless about the actual economics and government spending post WWII.
Krugman has become a total hack. There is actually a cottage industry of web pundits finding places where the latest column of Krugman contradicts what he said previously.
Where will you be, Jay?
In a Galaxy far far away…
Working on my memoirs..
Thanks for inquiring..
Well, hopefully, you’ll have internet! 😉
David, David, David…
You are once again attempting to apply abstract absolutes to very practical issues in the real world. For instance, it does matter how one disposes of paint. When disposed as a liquid, down a drain or into the ground, the paint mixes and contaminates ground water. When paint to be discarded is dumped out and allowed to dry and cure, the chemicals become relatively inert. The hardened paint lumps become funky rocks. You would not want me dumping liquid paint onto the ground above your drinking well. When I dispose of paint nowadays, I grab a scrap piece of plywood or cardboard and I pour out the paint and allow it to harden, then dispose of it days later. It’s a better way. We humans learn as we go!
When you say “the environment has no intrinsic value,” that’s just philosophical riffing, and quite silly. Since we need air to breath, water to drink, and food to eat, the environment is automatically linked to our survival. In the true story of Erin Brockovich (played by Julia Roberts in the movie, Erin Brockovich), the Pacific Gas and Electric Company KNOWINGLY (many documents to prove it, and it was proved in court) polluted the surrounding area and adjacent town with hexavalent chromium, a known carcinogen. Many adults and children developed Hodgkin’s lymphoma. So, does your Libertarian reasoning recognize when one individual punches or stabs another as aggression or harm, but not the poisoning of ground water for years? Wiggle out of that one, but please try to stay on point.
Sorry Pat, but you are on the wrong side of the issue.
First there is no such thing as a toxin – or more accurately EVERYTHING is toxic at some level – that includes water and oxygen.
Historically – even today, your waste management people do little better than the rest of us in disposing of “toxic” substances.
Quite often we separate out our garbage, and it gets hauled back and remixed.
In my area we have a huge trash to steam facility, that handles a large portion of our trash.
When there is not enough plastic in it, the plant mus inject propane – at additional cost.
Quite often the waste people just dump plastic back in before
Specifically regarding paint – what paint are you talking about ?
Modern paints – older paints ? Water based, Alkyds, Oils ?
Are you talking about older linseed oil paints ? Are you talking about paints with alcohols ?
Are you talking about lead paints ?
Put more simply – the vast majority of the above are less dangerous than drain cleaner or soap.
Next, as I started the toxicity of anything is related to the dose.
If you dump a can of paint down the drain once a year it will likely have zero environmental impact, It is even possible it could have a net positive impact.
IF everyone on your neighborhood does so every day – there will be a problem.
That said polution of most anykind coming from homes has never been a significant environmental problem.
The worst source of polution – both int he US and globally has been the government.
What the USSR did to the environment was unconscienable – but slowly nature is cleaning it up, because the russian can not afford to.
I noted Pruit was cleaning up superfund sites that no one has touched – must of those are Government dumps, many of the rest are dumps by government contractors.
If you have ever read the story of Lover canal – the actuall story, you should, government is all over it. The initial dumping was a consequence of the tremendous waste and polution of WWII.
Post WWII, Hooker had its arm twisted by government to overfill what was otherwise a well designed – by the standards of the time toxic storage dump. Then Hooker was forced to sell the property to local government – something they fought in court – because they knew that the local government would not properly manage the waste. Then despite a sales agreement barring the local government from selling the property – because ot the waste, they sold it to a developer without informing them or the waste.
And in the end who gets sued and trashed ? Hooker.
Anyway one of the big sites Pruitt is cleaning up is a site from the Manhattan project.
The second largest source of serious pollution is business.
But historically business pollution is self curing over time.
Why ? Because in the real world all waste as a part of business is a cost, and the best thing a business can do with waste is convert it into a product, and that is what always happens eventually.
When a mexican farmer has a chicken for dinner more than 50% of the chicken is waste.
When a Chicken enters a Tyson factory 98.5% of that chicken leaves as a product of some kind.
If the REAL WORLD the only sustained sources of waste in truly toxic doses are government and government contractors, or public utilities.
Everyone else either can not produce truly toxic doses or quickly figures out how to convert them to products.
Most of the “stories” that you hear, are far more myth than reality.
The famous 1969 Cayuga river fire that made it into time magazine and was a major factor in the creation of the EPA ? There are no pictures of the actual 1969 fire, because it was quite small, as the river had been slowly cleaning since WWII. Ypou should note that WWII features extremely prominently in the history of US polution. For half a decade waste was in consequential, the entire industrial might of the country was focused on war production and that was a million times more important than pollution. And BTW that is not a decision I disagree with.
Regardless the consequences were with us for decades.
The Cayuga river fire picture in Time was of a much more serious fire in 1952.
When I say the environment has no intrinsic value – that is a fact.
Your remarks make ny point.
We – Humans, value the environment – because it provides us food, water, or because we value its beauty. Each of these is a human, subjective and relative value.
Maybe if all humans vaporized tomorow, chimanzees would value the environment – though I doubt it, regardless, humans to not factor the value chimpanzees place on the environment into our valuations, and even if we did, it still would be a subjective human choice to value the value chimpanzees place on the environment.
The bottom line is that neither the environment NOR ANYTHING ELSE has intrinsic value.
All value is subjective.
“When I say the environment has no intrinsic value – that is a fact.”
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ! Good joke!
By the same kind of bogus linguistic argument I say your ideas/ thoughts have no intrinsic value. Insubstantial blog litter, cluttering up the comment environmeant. Dave! You’re a mental litterbug!
Please show me an indisputable valuation of the environment rooted in facts, not human judgement.
I would further qualify that you can not “cheat” and produce a purportedly intrinsic valuation by summing the value of other subjectively valued items.
Either the environomet has obvious intrinsic value, or it has an intrinsic made from sum of the intrinsic value of components. But then you have to prove the intrinsic value of the components.
Value is subjective. Nothing has intrinsic value.
Just to be clear AGAIN
“no intrinsic value” != “no value”
“Value is subjective. Nothing has intrinsic value.”
EVERYTHING is subjective. Science, math, logic, music, art, POLITICS, all subjective.
Humans imbue intrinsic values by filtering them through our common experience. Some things then take on ‘intrinsic’ value, like belief in gods/religion. Your argument is as futile and blockheaded as saying Jesus or Budda or Mohammad has no intrinsic value.
In other words, your use of the word ‘intrinsic’ intrinsically has no value in the discussion.
“Value” has no meaning other than in relationship to living beings. “
ROBERT A. HEINLEIN, Starship Troopers
I should leave you alone because you are making my case.
You argument here is:
“Your stupid because the argument you are making is obviously true. ”
I can live with that.
But I can not resist nailing your stupidity.
While everything is subjective. that does not mean all “opinions” are equal or equally valid.
Your “common experince” assertion is a fallcious tangent.
Yes, our common experince shapes out values.
BUT our unique experience does too.
That is why we can only legislate in the near universally shared realm.
Not merely in the majority.
Regardless, a key point to “value is subjective” is that our INDIVIDUAL experiences and influences alter our individual measure of value.
You and I do not share exactly the same values, nor do we value specific things to the same extent.
Your bastardized use of “intrinsic” demonstrates you do not know what intrinsic means.
Intrinsic:: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing
In otherwords NOT subjective, NOT as a result of experience – shared or individual.
Jesus and Buddha have no intrinsic value.
Their value to you is different from their value to me.
Their value to one group is different from that to another.
Their value is subjective.
It is infinitely variable.
At very best we can attempt to measure the value given by different individuals and it is likely they will map on to a bell curve. We can then statistically establish that 80% of us value something at Y +-X – if we are lucky and get a normal distribution which is not certain.
Further we get screwed because value is not constant over time.
I do not value Jesus the same today as 40 years ago.
You offering a Heinlein quote – a famous libertarian
whose quote is a paraphrase of “value is subjective” as a refutation of value is subjective.
“Value is not intrinsic, it is not in things. It is within us; it is the way in which man reacts to the conditions of his environment. Neither is value in words and doctrines, it is reflected in human conduct. It is not what a man or groups of men say about value that counts, but how they act.”
Ludwig von Mises
You seem to think that
“value is subjective” is some uniquely stupid view of mine,
Rather than a principle of most schools of economics.
You are not fighting with me, but most of economics.
That is a particularly annoying trait of yours.
While an appeal to authority is a fallacy.
It is also a false argument to pretend that a widely accepted principle of economics, is some personal bat shift crazy nonsense.
That said you are not unique in that form of argument.
Only in the extent of your invective.
The fact is a significant portion of what you and others here assert is my personal extremist libertarian rants, is just ordinary principles of economics.
Part of the problem is that much of what is purportedly “common sense” is neither common nor sense – not because that is my oppinion , but because that is the real world evidence
With respect to Brockvich – again we are talking about:
A public utility.
Pollution that occurred primarily during and immediately after WWII, and had stopped by the mid 60’s.
Further though Brockovich managed to get a huge award, the evidence is inconclusive that the groundwater was even polituted.
With respect to cancer clusters – to my knowledge there is not a single cancer cluster anywhere ever that has been tied to pollution.
Just to be clear that does not mean that we do not know that exposure to some things causes cancer. I am not talking about actual poisonings,
I am talking about instances like the Brokcovich story – there is a similar lawsuit in new england with similar results.
The fundimental problem is that cancer clusters occur naturally.
When we say the rate of cancer X is Y/100,000 people.
That does NOT mean that for every 100,000 people you have exactly Y cancers.
Cancer’s like myriads of other things distribute on a bell curve.
That means that something like 80% of the time the cancer rate for cancer X will fall between Y-n and y+n where n is 1 std dev.
But 1% of the time the cancer rate will be 2.5 std dev’s higher and 1% of the time it will be 2.5 std dev’s lower.
Proving that a cancer cluster is environmental – while not impossible is very difficult,
and to my knowledge has never been done successfully for polution – even your PGE story.
I am attacking a side issue here – because it really does not matter to my argument whether the Brokovich story really connects cancer to pollution,
It does not create an intrinsic value
Human life has not intrinsic value.
Lets assume as an example that PPACA actually provable saved on NET a single life.
i.e. that after taking the total number of lives saved by PPACA and the total number lost as a result of a multitrillion dollar cost.
Is everyone in the US going to pony up a couple of trillion to save one person ?
Just to be clear HHS values a human life at about $225K.
With respect to your last remark.
The examples you used do not make your point,
You completely fail to grasp that value is subjective – while offering examples that prove it.
But after all of that. I want to say again something I have said hundreds of times here.
If you cause actual harm to another you are obligated to make them whole.
In some instances – either of deliberate or extreme recklessness, you may be criminally liable.
In all instances – even if you are completely innocent and your intentions were good, you are still obligated to make those you harm whole.
If we alter the brockovick story to get the actual elements necescary for actual harm.
The real data from the real incident does not reach the level necescary to prove actual harm,
Regardless, demonstrate that some person or business polluted the land, water, air and demonstrably caused death, illness or harm to specific real people, and every libertarian on the planet that I know is going to expect that government will hold those responsible accountable.
But I want to note – you must have actual harm.
This not only means not the statisitcally suspect efforts to conflate a cancer cluster with concentrations of some substance well inside natural variations.
Actual harm also means harm that has happened.
It does not mean regulation – which is inherently a priori punishment for something you assume will happen in the future.
Prevention is accomplished by punishing harm that has actually occured, not by punishing hypothetical future harm.
We do not as an example need a law regulating 6Cr because you will be held accountable for anything that you do that actually harms others. You will be held accountable – even if you did not know it would cause harm.
Which BTW is the opposite of how regulation works. Because in a regulated world you typically can not be held accountable for harms you caused if you followed the regulation.
If I dump something into the ground water – even something I beleive is harmless, and it is subsequently proven to be harmful and my dumping caused actual harm to real people, my beleif that what I did was harmless is not and should not be a defense.
It is my responsiblity to know.
That BTW is how torts work. And I am pretty sure the Brockovick story is a “toxic tort” case.
The only fundimental issue I have with the Brockovick case is that of proving actual harm.
I do not beleive that occured. I do not beleive the statistical unlikelyhood of a cancer cluster and some low levels of a pollutant constitute proof of actual harm.
That logic just results in tort lawyers seeking out cancer clusters – which we KNOW must occur naturally and then finding something unusual someone did that correlates.
Correlation is not causation. Especially in single instances.
My Prognostication of the Final Mueller Investigation:
There will be no conclusive evidence tRUMP conspired with the Russians.
But there will be persuasive evidence his campaign did engage in illegal behavior relating to it. Like the Clinton conclusions, there will strong implication of tRUMP misbehavior, but nothing provable.
Those who see the inescapable conclusion that tRUMP and Putin have some kind of understanding favorable to them, but not to the US, will understand that relationship. Those who ignore what’s obviously been going on between them will keep their heads up their ass and keep doubting it.
When you have buffoons running the country, we all suffer.
We are not to far apart.
First – A majority of something close to it of people will BELEIVE that is what the results are.
Next – the strength of that beleif matters and polls rarely measure that and never well.
The strength of that belief matters because that will impact the 2018 and 2020 elections.
With respect to democrats – it matters whether the beleive this strongly enough to vote – if they would not have otherwise., and that means that they beleive Trump did something worse than Clinton. We can assume most democrats are not voting for Trump or Republicans regardless.
The Mueller investigation only matters if it causes anti-Trump/Republican voters who do not normally vote to vote.
With respect to Republicans an independents – it again matters whether they beleive Trump did something worse than Clinton.
My point is that if you want to see democrats do well in 2018 and 2020, you needs something that will change how people voted in 2016 or will cause people who did not vote to vote.
I do not doubt those who argue that if an election were held today – and Hillary was NOT on the Ballot, Trump and Republicans would do badly. But today is not Nov. 2018.
Democrats and the media have maintained an absolutely furious hatred of Trump for near 2 years now, that is incredibly hard to sustain. Doing so requires actual evidence – not the assorted tweets you keep linking. The constant Trumpocalyspe nonsense is highly likely to burn the left out and energize the right – absent real fuel, and thus far that has not materialized.
That agains brings me back to “it is the economy stupid”.
If we have 6 straight quarters averaging 3% growth – which seems likely by Nov 2018 and no feul for democratic rage – we are going to see democrats sit out the election.
You note the lopsided antitrump swign with age. Well guess what voting extremely strongly correlates with age. It does nto matter how strongly antitrump or republican people who do not vote are. Republicans and conservatives have always been more reliable voters, and that is more true in mid terms.
Next, I am speculating but I think that the past historic mid term swings are atleast partly effected by the fact that for the past 80 years the base for republicans and democrats has been changing radically – the so called great sorting. That is nearly complete.
I think mid term swings will be smaller than normal – again absent something like Trump impeachment or nuclear war.
I would also note that the Republican takeover of statehouses, has created a serious problem for democrats as they have a very shallow bench to recruit from.
There ability to win in the senate, requires winning in the house and winning first,
wining in the house first requires winning seats in state legislatures.
It is not enough to hold seats they already have – which aside from Jones is pretty much all that has happened.
And I think winning more states and more seats requires shifting towards the middle significantly.
The democratic party can permanently be the party of the far left, it can be assured of support in major cities and about 15 blue states. But gaining ground in purple states and making inroads in red states requires moving toward the middle, which democrats seem utterly disinclined to do.
“But there will be persuasive evidence his campaign did engage in illegal behavior relating to it.”
Do you mean the stuff we already know – which is not criminal, or are you postulating Mueller is going to produce evidnce of something we do not yet have evidence of ?
“Like the Clinton conclusions, there will strong implication of tRUMP misbehavior, but nothing provable.”
There is plenty of evidence regarding Clinton. If there was half the evidence against Trump there is against Clinton, he would already have been impeached.
“Those who see the inescapable conclusion that tRUMP and Putin have some kind of understanding favorable to them, but not to the US, will understand that relationship. Those who ignore what’s obviously been going on between them will keep their heads up their ass and keep doubting it.”
What I find most disengenuous about this is that the Obama administration actively courted a better relationship with Russia right up to the day after the election.
Almost nothing that we have subsequently learned regarding Russia was not known not merely before the election but much of it for years before the election.
The very people you cite claimig Russia interfered are onj the record saying Russia always interferes and 2016 was not unusual.
So what i hear is that it is OK for Obama to be friendly with a Russia that has evil intentions towards us, It is OK for him to approve the U1 deal, to hide russian corruption from congress, to tolerate their interferance in our election to promise to treat them more favorably after 2012, to basically fawn over Russia for 8 years,
But when the election is over and Trump has shocked the hell out of the left and won, someone must be to blame, and it must be russia – because god forbid the problem should be with the ideology of the left, and now suddenly though Russia has not changed in the slightest, and despite the fact that Trump’s relationship to Russia is far more clearly about what is in the interests of the US – not about favoring them, and not about punishing them because the left is angry he won.
I do think the US has a better, honest more open relationship with Russia today.
I do not think Putin has any reason to be confused – Trump will act in the US best interests – always – favoring Russia where that benefits us, and opposing them when that is in our interests.
What will not happen is this Crazy U1 garbage – it is not that I have a problem with the deal,
It is how it was sold.
You say americans will not beleive Trump is acting in the US interests.
Who thinks that the Obama administration was thinking about US interests with the U1 deal ?
I am not sure it was a bad deal – but mostly it just happened, and mostly It appears to have happened – not be because it was good for the US – but because it was good for Obama, and good for Hillary and good for the Clinton foundation and good for Russian Oligarchs and good for Putin.
So what I see is exactly the opposite of what you see.
I see the use relationship to Russia changing back to what is the best interests of the US, and away from all this background noise and gaming.
I think Putin can absolutely count on the US being in his corner – when it is in our interests,
and absolutely count on our opposition when it is not.
And I think he also knows, he is not going to get anywhere trying to game that.
“Do you mean the stuff we already know – which is not criminal, or are you postulating Mueller is going to produce evidnce of something we do not yet have evidence of ?”
If Mueller uncovers the latter you will SCREAM to suppress it as not falling under his authority of investigation. That would include uncovering money laundering evidence in Poo Poo’s taxes, correct.
But prior criminal behavior would be cause to impeach. And to throw rotten fruit at Poo Poo whenever he appears in public.
You did not answer the question.
The issue of jurisdiction went out the window at the start of this.
Mueller was given a brief that violates the law and the 4th amendment. Why would I expect he would change now.
Yes, I do care about the rule of law. I could give a rats ass about Trump.
You still do not understand what Money laundering is – but that is unserprizing as neither does Mueller.
You can not launder money that is not the proceeds of a crime.
Trump’s taxes have been scrutinized by an army of lawyers and accountants, as well as likely half the IRS. In the even Mueller has them, then he has stepped on a landmine, because when they leak it is his head.
If you want to beleive that Trump’s tax return will give you a crime – beat your head into that wall.
Regardless, yes, Mueller has a fundamental problem. It is self evident at this point that he is not investigating a crime, he is searching for a crime. that is specifically what the 4th amendment prevents.
Have we become the Chekka ?
You are so fixated on Trump hatred you can not see straight, you can no see the consequences of your own actions.
With respect to Mueller – and more I am already screaming – not about protecting Trump but about continues lawlessness.
You and the left are prepared to destroy your enemies by any means necessary, You are parrotting Beria.
Except that it is all the rest of us that will suffer I would be content to allow you to live in the world you have created.
If the Transition documents are government records – then they are subject to the FOIA, and the left could get all of them PUBLICLY through FOIA requests.
Judicial Watch and the right have been extremely successful in that.
I do not have a problem with the Transition records being public records.
I think that is probably a good idea.
But it is NOT haw things are now.
If you want it that way – change the law.
As the law currently is Mueller has behaved lawlessly – and his statement is a baldfaced lie and he knows it undermining his own credibility.
Regardless, you do not get to make up the law as you go along.
Unlike you. I have no expectations that these documents will do anything beyond provide some revelations that embarrass some contenders or eventual nominees.
As noted before the entire problem with the Mueller investigation and with the left and with you is that it presumes that Trump is a criminal, that the purpose is just to keep digging until you find the crime.
That entirely inverts the already weakened presumption of innocence.
Clinton never could have withstood half this scrutiny.
In the end should you somehow succeed in “getting Trump” which is highly unlikely,
you reinforce the view that you have engaged in a soft coup – because you will have.
If our government – including prosecutors and investigators can not follow the rule of law,
we are lawless – there is no government. We are subject to mob rule, that of left leaning entrenched elites.
Regardless, Mueller is very effectively building the case for draining the swamp.
You do not seem to grasp that adage – if you strike the king, kill the king.
If you do not “get Trump” – and you are not going to.
You make him stronger, not weaker.
There is growing broad support to clean out the upper tiers of government – particularly the DOJ and FBI.
Are you prepared to accept replacing the Uhr’s and Strzok’s and Yate’s and Rosentien’s and McCabes with equivalently partisan republicans who will be entrenched for a couple of decades ?
Who will decide who they wish to investigate and which investigations they wish to tank based on their political views ?
Those in government can hold and express whatever political views they wish. But they can not act on them. They are expected to follow the law, and follow the evidence, not to save the country from their political enemies, not to take out insurance against the wrong candidate prevailing in an election. They are supposed to vigorously persue the law even when the target is one of their own. If they can not do that – and quite obviously the can not, then they are unfit for their jobs.
When they are replaced – do you want conservatives who share the same partisanship ?
Or do you want people who will truly divorce their politics from their use of government power ?
Anything is grounds for impeachment without regard for how it is obtained.
Impeachment is political not criminal.
Trump can be impeached for farting in public.
The requirements for impeachment are simple – but not easily acheivable.
A majority of the house and 2/3 of the Senate.
Dave “Trump can be impeached for farting in public.”
Good Lord Dave, don’t even mention that!
The MSM will report how the smell negatively impacts the surrounding area.
The environmentalist will post hundreds of comments about how it impacts global warming.
The PC police will post comments on the appropriateness of this happening in public.
And Jay will repost all of them here on TNM.
Don’t need that, we already have enough reposting of others comments.
Squeeze your nose, Ron.
Exactly what I would expect from the more intelligent segment of this part of society today.
“When you have buffoons running the country, we all suffer.”
Unemployment continues to decline.
Labor force participation continues to rise,
growth is up and additional 1%.
Wages are rising for the first time in a long time.
many of these gains are occuring at the bottom.
How is it that we are suffering ?
As you well know, all those economic gains have more to do with Obama’s 8 years in office than tRump policies, which have NOT had time to effect anything- yet.
The detrimental effects of this administration will be long term, though you can already see them in the diminution of our reputation abroad, with allies and enemies both; and at home in the unpresidential widespread divisiveness he’s created here. He’s so disliked and resented because he created that dislike and resentment with his own stupidness. He’s driven a deeper wedge between Americans than anyone else I can remember in my lifetime, including George Wallace and McCarthy.
This sums him up: 👎🖕
“As you well know, all those economic gains have more to do with Obama’s 8 years in office than tRump policies, which have NOT had time to effect anything- yet.”
Do not let facts get in the way
Most of the improvement in the past 50 years occured during the last 20 years of the 20th century NOT the first 20 of the 21st.
Economic growth for the 20th century averaged 3.5%.
For the 21st thus far 2%
For Obama 1.8%.
For Trump thus far 3%.
If the standard is economic, Obama is the worst president in 50 years.
Possibly the worst president since Hoover.
As to this “not time to effect anything” – nonsense.
The economy is anticipatory. That is why the markets rose after Trump was elected.
They had anticipated a Clinton victory and had to adjust.
The economy is and has been gaining steam because people believe Trump’s policies will be beneficial.
In the highly unlikely event they are wrong – and all this slashing of regulation and hacking away at the federal bureacracy has no benefit or is even harmful – desite historical evidence to the contrary, Then the economy will stall.
What is more likely is that it will pick up steam as we shift from anticipation to realization of the benefits.
Nothing is guaranteed, The Trump economy has had to endure the enormous cost of 3 devastating huricanes making US landfall – something hat has not happened for a decade.
There are myriads of other potential bombs – some planted by Obama some purely natural that could tank the “trump economy”.
We are overdue for a recession, and though growing the economy is still weak and weak economies are fragile.
but with all the Caveats the odds still strongly favor 8 quarters of 3+% growth by Nov 2018.
Something we have not seen for 20 years.
You can beleive whatever you want, and I can not convince you.
But voters are not going to buy that as driven by Obama and democrats after 8 years of failure.
“The detrimental effects of this administration will be long term, though you can already see them in the diminution of our reputation abroad, with allies and enemies both; and at home in the unpresidential widespread divisiveness he’s created here. He’s so disliked and resented because he created that dislike and resentment with his own stupidness. He’s driven a deeper wedge between Americans than anyone else I can remember in my lifetime, including George Wallace and McCarthy.”
I guess facts do not matter much to you.
The current gapping partisan divide opened during the Obama administration and it opened because the left shifted further left.
Trump did not make it, it was already there.
You and people like you made it.
You created it by shifting to the politics of insult.
Everyone you do not like is a racist, homophobe, mysoginist, hateful hating hater.
The source of hate and intolerance in the US is the left today not the right.
Trump is the consequence of the division you sewed not the cause.
“Sorry Pat, but you are on the wrong side of the issue.”
No, Dave, I’m on point, but you have to skirt around the point with your philosophical riffing and invalid absolutes.
The direct question to you was: one individual punching or stabbing another individual is understood by your Libertarian mindset as aggression and harm, but is hiding documents with scientific data regarding the harmfulness of a substance and subsequently poisoning a large percentage of people in a town not seen as aggression and harm?
You proceed to say “There is no such thing as a toxin.”
That’s more philosophical riffing. You then attempted to edit yourself by saying, “EVERYTHING is toxic at some level.” Well that speaks to and supports the concept of Moderation. Too much or too little of something is sometimes harmful or lethal, and it is why reasonable people set limits and pass laws. You know this, but you don’t want to admit it without first piling up a mountain of tangents and provocative statements.
On some occasions, people working within corporations and business will self-regulate (see, I admit that). Sometimes people self-regulate because they operate by some guide other than profit, and sometimes they self-regulate mostly to protect their future profits. That is where your mind will go and cling. But everyone knows that corporations and businesses often operate purely for sake of profit without regard for the consequences. Your beloved “Free Markets” will not protect us from everything, but you don’t want to openly admit this. You see the world primarily from a supply and demand, production and economic view, and other consequences are a distant lesser concern. You know there are a myriad of situations in which value can be created for consumers while at the same time limiting the impact and harm to the environment and people, but that’s in that foggy flux of reality that your mind doesn’t like. You want zero and 100%. You have provided evidence with your words over and over again that you struggle with the concepts of balance, moderation, fairness, etc. Because your cognitive machinery can’t pin those down to black and white absolutes, you want to disregard them and devalue those concepts.
You say waste management people do little better than the rest of us in disposing of toxic substances (which there is no such thing as). So is your stance on that point that because the process is imperfect it does not matter, and it is wrong to be concerned with it? You know that some ways are better than others, but you won’t go there because you’d rather be contentious.
You contradict yourself. You said, “What the USSR did to the environment was unconscionable” Oh, so does pollution matter or not?
My question was not whether one individual disposing of paint in a somewhat better way would reduce pollution altogether and save the planet. Eventually you do answer my question. But first you have to bash ‘government” some more, even though everyone knows the government is flawed.
Then you talk about value being subjective. More tangential philosophical riffing. And then you give us a beauty:
“Human life has not intrinsic value.”
Well there’s a gem!
If we were playing chess I’d offer to let you take your move over there, even if you’d already taken your hand off your piece. But you’re not done:
“Prevention is accomplished by punishing harm that has actually occurred.”
Well, yes, that’s one way, and at least you admit that prevention exists! Can you conceive of any other ways that prevention can be accomplished? Everyone can, and I know you can, but you’d rather be contentious rather than find common ground.
Finally, imbedded in paragraphs of unnecessary and unhelpful statements, you do answer the question:
“…demonstrate that some person or business polluted the land, water, air and demonstrably caused death, illness or harm to specific real people, and every libertarian on the planet that I know is going to expect that government will hold those responsible accountable.”
Thank you. I rest my case. You could have just keyboarded that obvious answer to an obvious question but first you had to get something out of your system:
“Human life has not intrinsic value.”
haha I don’t think you believe that. You do care, Dave. More important than Supply and Demand there are other things going on! Peace. Happy Holidays. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Pat;
I have been pretty clear.
I have repeated nearly exactly the same 3 points so frequently everyone’s eyes are likely glazed over.
The “Non-Agression Principle” comes in myriads of forms,
Kant’s catagorecal imperative is generally considered a superset.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law”
That directly addresses one of your issues. The expectation is that it is absolute or nearly absolute.
I completely agree that absolute or nearly absolute principles are rare.
Government should not impose by force anything that is NOT absolute of nearly absolute.
There are myriads of reasons for that absolute and near unaninity are intrinsic.
The less support something imposed by force has the more totalitarian the government must be.
There is no cost to impose a law that everyone agrees with.
There is no libertarain litmus test.
My libertarianism and that of a large number of other libertarians rests on 3 principles.
These principles define when government may use force.
They are absolute rules of conduct that establish when force may be used
That is all they dictate.
The use of force according to these principles usually means government.
But they also justify the use of force by individuals in extraordinary circumstances or when government has failed.
I would also note that as these principles are about force the words must be construed narrowly.
Narrow word construction should be an absolute when we are discussing force.
Whether the discussion is about my 3 principles or the constitution or our laws.
The objective of a principle is not to justify the use of force as broadly as possible, but to do so narrowing and clearly.
Next, while these principles may have overlap, they also stand alone.
Violating the NAP is a crime, violating the harm principle is a tort.
But some things are both crimes and torts.
1). The Non-Agression Principle. Wikipedia will provide about 40 different historical expressions of the NAP. Kan’t catagorical imperative is considered a superset of the NAP.
One common form is
You may not initiate force or fraud against another.
This is the core of Criminal law. Not just for libertarians but for everyone.
Can you think of any example where a person may initiate force against another that is not a crime ?
Many consider Fraud a form of force and do not include it. Others do not consider Fraud a crime.
I do not have well developed thoughts on that as I have not had discussions that drove me to work out clear views on Fraud.
2). You are obligated to keep contracts. This is the basis of civil law.
To be clear I am using contract as legally defined – that usually means
offer, acceptance, consideration, and some steps toward execution.
Contracts do not have to be formal or written.
But I am using contract rather than agreement because merely making an offer does nto justify the use of force, nor should force be used just because the offer is accepted.
Consideration most commonly means some actual exchange – usually money.
An agreement may be morally binding when offered.
But it requires atleast the first 3 elements before we can use force to compel execution.
4) the Harm Principle. If you actually harm another, you are obligated to make them whole.
Again some argue the NAP covers this. Regardless, the Harm principle covers the condition where you do someone else harm without using force.
Maybe that is not possible. Again not something I have delved deeply into.
Regardless, the Harm Principle corresponds to Torts,
Most if not all your pollution examples fall under Torts. that is why pollution cases are often called “toxic torts”.
Torts covers absolutely everything regulation does – or atleast everything regulation should as well as things regulation does not.
Torts are simple – prove actual harm, and prove that defendant is the cause, and they are obligated to make you whole.
Any actual harm of any kind can be a tort. You do not need an existing law or regulation for be violated to have a tort.
Tort’s is a major area where many libertarians diverge from conservatives.
Conservitives are openly hostile to torts.
Libertarians are hostile to regulation
Both attempt to solve the same problem.
The harm principle has no such defense. If you cause harm you must make the harmed party whole. There is no buts, or of only’s.
If it is established that there was real harm, and it is established that you did it,
You are accountable.
Whether you used force or not,
Whether you had good intentions or not.
Whether you had reason to beleive your actions would cause harm or not.
If you are the cause and the result is harm you are responsible PERIOD.
This is quite different from the regulatory approach where you are not responsible no matter what harm you caused if you complied with regulations.
The other huge difference is that regulation is a priori – you are punished whether there is harm merely for violating the regulation.
While the harm principle is a posterori – you are not punished according to the harm principle (you can still be punished according to the NAP) unless there is harm.
With regard to hiding documents. You would need to get alot more specific.
If there is no actual harm – I am not interested in debate over “hiding documents”.
Regardless you seem to be confusing procedural issues with principles.
If you harmed someone else AND you “hid documents” to conceal that, that would be “consciousness of guilt”.
While the Harm Principle does not require any intention to harm at all.
The consequences – punishment will vary based on intention and other factors.
A sufficiently agregious violation of the Harm principle is also a violation of the NAP.
“You proceed to say “There is no such thing as a toxin.”
That’s more philosophical riffing. You then attempted to edit yourself by saying, “EVERYTHING is toxic at some level.” Well that speaks to and supports the concept of Moderation. Too much or too little of something is sometimes harmful or lethal”
Correct.
“and it is why reasonable people set limits and pass laws”
non-sequitur.
We do not pass laws and regulations merely because something is a good idea or a bad idea.
Freedom means nothing if it does not mean being able to do something others think is a bad idea.
Further your assertion violated Kant’s catagorical imperative. – it can not be a universal law.
Just on simple example Most cancer treament involves exposure to toxic chemicals or radiation, with the expectation that the cancer can be killed before you are killed.
“You know this, but you don’t want to admit it without first piling up a mountain of tangents and provocative statements”
Just plain wrong.
I also get annoyed by demands to admit something that is wrong that you desire.
What is Truth is Truth, admitted or not.
Provocative statements are an effort to get you to think.
If your argument, your logic your rules do not work in “provocative” instances – often where everyone just assumes they do, then it is easier to accept that the do not work at all.
Even if I can not convince you that regulation is a bad idea in the instance you are absolutely most completely certain it is obvioulsy a good idea. If I can just get you to question what is your best case, it is likely you will be more willing to accept that the less clear scenarios might be wrong.
“but is hiding documents with scientific data regarding the harmfulness of a substance and subsequently poisoning a large percentage of people in a town not seen as aggression and harm?”
You are conflating procedural issues with required elements.
If you harm people you are responsible – whether you hid that harm or not.
Depending on the details hiding information might be an aggravating factor justifying a more severe consequence. But it is not an independent harm of its own.
This also works the opposite way – Most of us harm others – we can hide that, ignore that, or try to fix that.
Trying to undo the damage you did is generally a mitigating factor – and usually results in less severe consequences.
“But everyone knows that corporations and businesses often operate purely for sake of profit without regard for the consequences.”
everyone knows lots of things that are false. That is not a reason to pretend they are true.
Regardless, the above is true – but rare.
Still lets examine it further.
Can you find an example of this that is not also a violation of one of the 3 principles I provided ?
If a businesses profit fixated actions involve force – it has violated the NAP and criminal law.
If it breaches agreements it have violated civil law.
If someone is harmed it is a tort.
What instance of a business fixating on profit while ignoring consequences that does not violate on of those 3 principles can you come up with that requires a law ?
I beleive it was economist Daron Acemoglu who worked out that even if a business deliberately tried to act badly, to completely thwart the market, that ultimately it would be forced to conform or go bankrupt.
As I said – much of what “everybody knows” is wrong.
“Your beloved “Free Markets” will not protect us from everything, but you don’t want to openly admit this.”
I do not love free markets – I love freedom. Markets are a subset.
I do not depend on markets for everything.
Where we disagree is that you seem to think that we need more beyond:
Market self regulation – that means you and I getting mad and changing our consumption choices.
Government enforcement of prohibitions against initiating force or fraud
Government enforcement of contracts.
Government enforcement of the obligation to make whole those you harm.
So please identify and example where those four are insufficient to protect us ?
“You know there are a myriad of situations in which value can be created for consumers while at the same time limiting the impact and harm to the environment and people,”
There is no such thing as no impact, so all we are debating is the scale of the impact.
The environment IS a value of people.
The debate is about the scale of that value.
The ONLY difference between you and I is that I beleive people can express the value they place on the environment – as well as all their other values in their consumption choices.
You beleive people can not be trusted to express their own values properly and must be overridden by government.
Additionally you beleive that is still necescary despite the protections of the 3 principles I have offered that are the underpinnings of western society.
I do not think that anyone here disagrees with any of those three principles.
I am not even sure that anyone thinks that are not absolute or near absolute.
The only question is whether in additon to our own choices that self regulate the market those 3 principles are insufficient to prevent whatever needs prevented.
“You have provided evidence with your words over and over again that you struggle with the concepts of balance, moderation, fairness, etc. ”
Please do not misrepresent me.
While I am open to argument and prepared to change my mind if I can be persuaded that I am wrong. this is not a “struggle”. I am not riddled with doubt.
Most everything I discuss here is with respect to GOVERNMENT.
There might be minor issues to address at the far margins of some of what I offer.
On very rare occasions it might be difficult to determine if there is harm or if there is initiation of force. But error in those determinations does not undermine principles.
Further government might get it wrong occasionally regarding any of all of these.
While we should minimize errors. Errors in appllication are not errors in principle.
Separately the vast domain of things outside government is entirely different.
I have zero problem accepting that we have moral duties that are not covered by the principles I offer. But the only duties government can enforce are those dictated by those 3 principles.
I personally feel driven to give to needy children throughout the world. I beleive that is a moral obligation. But neither you nor government can force me to do so, nor can I force you.
There are lots of issues or morality that are completely outside the scope of government.
We do not discuss them much here.
Which is very disturbing – nearly all of life is outside of government.
The principles I have offered leave infinite room for freedom, while still precluding what must be precluded as efficiently as possible.
I do not “struggle” with fairness – it is a word that never should be used in conjunction with force.
Nor does “moderation” ever provide an answer to how or when force should be used.
Moderation is a value not a principle
I am not sure fairness is even a value – but you can disagree.
Regardless, you are free to value thes as you please.
We express our values through our free choices – in the market in our private lives.
Actual principles regarding force are the only domain of government.
“Because your cognitive machinery can’t pin those down to black and white absolutes, you want to disregard them and devalue those concepts.”
See Kant’s catagorical imperative.
Everything is not “black and white”
principles are or as nearly so as we can make them.
This is not about not seeing gradations,. it is about understanding that gradations are fine with respect to everything that does not involve force.
They are to be eliminated to greatest extent possible where the use of force in involved.
Even if you do not agree that this should be black and white.
It should atleast be possible for you to agree that grey areas regarding the use of force are a bad idea and should be actively reduced as much as possible.
“You say waste management people do little better than the rest of us in disposing of toxic substances (which there is no such thing as). So is your stance on that point that because the process is imperfect it does not matter, and it is wrong to be concerned with it? You know that some ways are better than others, but you won’t go there because you’d rather be contentious.”
If the process does not work, there are only two choices – skip it or improve it.
Spending alot of time and resources to accomplish little more than have some people “feel good” about recycling is stupid.
Waste Management fails because it tends to be either government run or government contracted.
The incentive for waste managment is not to recycle, but to make government happy.
Experience should tell you that governments objective is not to make people happy.
The fact that I think we should not pursue a failed process with broken incentives is not libertarian.
It is just logic and reason.
some ways are better than others. Free Markets are incentivized to find the best ways and to accurately reflect the values of people. Governments are not.
Government solves a problem by getting the advice of experts and then people in the industry and then having politicians game their resolution to whatever is in the best interests of rent seekers that they can publicly sell, ossifying that broken solution into law and never changing it.
That is almost guaranteed to get poor results, and worse not to learn from mistakes.
Again none of this is ideological or libertarian.
“Then you talk about value being subjective. More tangential philosophical riffing. And then you give us a beauty:”
Philosophical – perhaps. Also a broadly accepted principle of economics.
“Human life has not intrinsic value.”
Well there’s a gem!
If we were playing chess I’d offer to let you take your move over there, even if you’d already taken your hand off your piece. But you’re not done:
Do you know what “intrinsic” means ?
I did not say human life has no value,
The value of human life is whatever humans decide.
For some of us it is low, for others higher.
It varies with time and place.
Nothing has “intrinsic value” that is what value is subjective means.
Again this broadly accepted economics, not libertarian ideology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
““…demonstrate that some person or business polluted the land, water, air and demonstrably caused death, illness or harm to specific real people, and every libertarian on the planet that I know is going to expect that government will hold those responsible accountable.”
Thank you. I rest my case. You could have just keyboarded that obvious answer to an obvious question but first you had to get something out of your system:”
Part of the problem is that we mostly agree on outcome.
You do not grasp that I vigorously disagree on the means.
Nothing in what we agree on above requires regulation. Torts a much older and better solution works fine and does nto have the problems of regulation.
But you are correct, I have lost you in the weeds addressing such issues as that the Brockovick case did not establish that PGE had caused actual harm.
Had they done so – I would have no problem withe the result.
BTW the PGE case was a Toxic Tort case – not a regulation case.
Private parties sued for damages because they had been harmed.
Governments only role was as arbitrator.
““Human life has not intrinsic value.”
haha I don’t think you believe that. You do care, Dave. More important than Supply and Demand there are other things going on! ”
“No Intrinsic value” != “no value”
I place a high value on human life far higher than HHS.
Follow that carefully “I place” – the value is something :I choose”, HHS, chooses different, you may choose different than all of us.
The value of a human life is subjective, it is not intrinsic.
The alternatives to subjective theory of value are:
The labor theory of value – aka Marxism.
Value is utility – very close to value is subjective, ultimately morphed into
Value as marginal utility – really just a subset of value is subjective.
The intrinsic theory of value – which is a misnomer, look it up, I am pretty sure you will not agree with it, regardless it is just a bizzare permutation of the subjective theory of value, it is not intrinsic in the sense most people think of intrinsic
The power theory of value.
The subjective theory of value is the only one that solves Adam Smith’s diamond/water paradox.
Regardless aside from the labor theory of value and the french pysiocrats land derived theory of value, all other economic theories of value (including the intrinsic theory of value) assert that value is NOT intrinsic – there is no physical attribute that determines value.
The subject theory of value is:
Humans determine as they please what something is worth.
The other theories are
Human determine in some particular way what something is worth.
The other theories are often right, but not always. A theory must always be right.
The subjective theory accepts that humans may determine value by use sometimes, or exchange or utiltty or power or ..
but however value is determined it is done by humans in whatever way they please.
It is not inherently fixed to anything though it may be fixed to something – in many instance. .
Ron, skip this 🤬
The owner of the Transition documents including emails is TFA.
If you want transistion documents to belong to the government – then change the law.
Regardless, Mueller would still have a problem. If the Owner is the GSA – then the Owner is the executive branch, then Mueller STILL needs Trump’s consent or a warrant.
It seems really really hard for those on the left to grasp that the executive branch is a single entity entirely answering to the president, no one in the executive branch has any power under the constitution except the president.
Even Mueller technically serves at the pleasure of the president.
You can impeach Trump or demand his impeachment or change your vote based on illegally obtained emails. You can not convict him or anyone else of a crime on the same basis.
“The owner of the Transition documents including emails is TFA.”
Bzzzzzzttttt, Irrelevant.
“In its 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, observing that “this Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” The Smith ruling also made reference to another Fourth Amendment case decided three years earlier, United States v. Miller, that involved warrantless government access of a suspect’s bank records. In Miller, the Supreme Court had also found in favor of the government, writing:
The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.”
the GSA, in this case, is a third party. The emails were voluntarily turned over to them by TFA. No warrent required. Psssptttt.
The GSA is “not” in this case a third party.
The GSA is an agency of the executive branch of government under the direction of TRUMP.
There are myriads of 4th amendment cases, and they are highly contradictory.
Most of the recent ones have moved toward INCREASING the expectation of privacy.
Carpenter is infront of SCOTUS right now and is likely to be 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of requing a warant for CLSI data.
There are several current cases that would require a warrant even for the emails and communications of a government employee under many circumstances.
I disagree with Turley only in his final assessment – this DOES taint Mueller.
It does so – even if he wins and is able to use these records for prosecution.
The UNIVERSAL rule should be, where there is no compelling reason otherwise – exigent circumstances – and those are rare as hens teeth.
GET A WARRANT, there is no harm from gaining the permission of the court, and everything to gain.
The 4th amendment does nto protect us from ALL searches – only warrantless ones.
Separately – the expectation of privacy stream of cases are wrongly decided.
SCOTUS never should have allowed government access to a persons records – even when they are held by a third party – without a warrant.
As Turley notes – Trump hatred is driving an unholy alliance of prosecutors and those on the left who used to be civil libertarians to defend nonsense they used to vigorously oppose.
It is called hypocracy. It is a test. When your views on issues vary based on whose ox is being gored, you are a hypocrit and your decisions and oppinions are untrustworthy.
You clearly do not make choices based on fact, logic reason, but on ideology, partisanship and felling.
You still don’t get it!
When email is transferred voluntarily as these were, there is NO OWNER.
EXISTING LAW MAKES THAT PLAIN.
And to repeat your redundant assertion, I’d you don’t like that, CHANGE THE LAW.
Jay,
There is absolutely no question of ownership here.
Any source you are citingt that says otherwise needs to go back to law school.
The question, the only question is whether the specific circumstances require a warrant to access this information.
There are no exigent circumstances, there is no credible threat of loss or destruction, there is no compelling need for immediate access.
In otherwords there are none of the things the courts normally look to to justify a warrentless search.
We have alot of very bad 4th amendment law – as a direct consequence of the stupid war on drugs. A legal truism is bad cases make bad law. It is very very difficult to get the courts to supress evidence necescary to convict an obvious criminal. The result is lots of bad law.
The test of a good judge is can they adhere to the law – even when they do not like the outcome, even when the bad guys seem to win.
Those judges that ruled against Trump’s EO – are bad judges, because they could not do so.
They allowed their ideology to cloud the law. Base cases make bad law.
But the reverse is often True. The 4th amendment usually prevails when the person being searched illegally is not an obvious criminal. Almost all the Iran-Contra convictions were overturned, most of the big white collar cases in new york were overturned on appeal.
I would like to see everyone – including drug dealers afforded their rights.
But inevitably that starts with powerful white men who do not overtly appear to be crooks.
I know that you are unable to say business without following it with criminal.
I know that you can not distinguish between CEO’s and murderer;’s and theives.
But the courts can.
You have cited alot of precidents – that essentially say the 4th amendment does not exist – and you are close to correct.
But there are conflicting precidents – right through to today. In fact the recent SCOTUS 4th amendment history is trending towards stronger 4th amendment rights.
You may not – but Mueller should know this.
He would have had no problem getting a warrant, or he could have issued a subpeona and fought out its scope in court,
He would have won without any doubt. BUT there would be several effects.
He would have had to provide Probable cause.
In otherwords he would have had to publicly expose a basis for what he is looking for.
He would have had to do so in a way that courts would be able to weigh.
Put differently he would have had to show some of his cards.
Further, as certain as he would have gotten these records, he would not have gotten all of them.
There is not a 4th amendment case in existance that says the government can have whatever records it wants – because ti wants them.
You cite bank records cases, can the police go from seizing your bank records to those of everyone you exchange with ?
Even when the courts have allowed warrantless searches – there has been an expectation that law enforcement would keep the search narrow.
Trump’s lawyers have asserted that some of these messages are priviledged – communications between attorney’s and clients or attorney client work product.
That is a near inviolable priviledge.
Mueller appears to have demanded nearly all or all the TFA records.
There were probably 1000 or more people working for TFA, many had nothing to do with the campaign,
If as an example Mueller discovered that some Clear was embezzling from TFA as a result of these records, it is a near certainty he could not prosecute. There is absolutely no nexus to Trump/Russia and the campaign.
Prosecutors and police do not like to go to courts to get permission.
One of the reasons why is that they would typically rather get everything by force and then fight about whether they are allowed later, and they often, but not always win on that.
But when courts are brought in, Prosecutors are allowed to search and seize, but rarely everything they want.
Clinton was able to protect some of her communications in the email scandal using attorney client priviledge – despite the fact that Clinton and her attornies worked for the governenmnt at the time. and the clinton emails really were owned by the government.
Had Mueller gone for a warrant, he would have been barred access to communications with some attorney’s and access to communications involving people who he could not tie ahead of time to his Trump/Russia collusion meme.
In otherwords the courts would not have let him go fishing.
Here is the applicable law.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The actual rule of law, requires following it as written as those who ratified it understood it.
I can assure you that the founders were incredibly hostile to warentless searches and general warrants.
This is part of the rant against activist judges. ALL the cases you cite violate the 4th amendment as written.
You do not “:change the law” by twisting the court.
Change the law – actually means change the law, not the courts.
That requirement is YOURS.
I would also be more persuaded by your arguments if I did not know you would be arguing the opposite if the show were reversed.
In fact the very same legal experts who are claiming the TFA documents can be provided to Mueller are trying to claim Strzok’s texts can not be subpeoned at all.
Mike Hatcher..Here is the answer to the Medicare billing question from my Medicare consultant in Maryland..
When you begin receiving retirement benefits from Social Security, you automatically become eligible for part A Medicare coverage (hospital and some outpatient services). Most all doctors and other outpatient services are covered by Part B and that you have to sign up for. Part C and D are pharmacy coverage and Medicare Advantage plans
When a hospital starts accepting Medicare patients, they sign a “Conditions of Participation” agreement” and in that agreement they agree to bill Medicare first for all services provided to Medicare patients. If the do not do that they are in violation of that agreement and that can lead to a slap on the wrist to a fine and/or being thrown out of the program.
So to my comment concerning Buffett. He has paid into the social security system so he is eligible to receive it. A cursory search only showed this, but nothing if he actually has filed for SS benefits. But anyone that has made enough money in their lives and invested wisely that would want to pay their own way when entering a hospital can not do that if they are receiving SS benefits due to the Conditions of Participation the hospital signs when they get authorization to be a Medicare provider of services. If the bill is $10K and they want make sure the hospital gets 100% of that charge then the hospital bills Medicare, they get $3-$4K as payment from Medicare and the patient can make a building fund donation of the $6-$7 K (or even more) if they want to do that. The hospital just can not substitute self pay billing for Medicare.
I beleive there is some caselaw on your medicare question,.
I think it was during Clinton’s presidency a couple of congressmen tried to opt out of medicare and a couple of other things – hoping for a court decision that would pin medicare down in a legally and legislatively useful way.
The ultimate decision you can not opt out, but you have no right to it either.
But we abandon logic and reason when we enter the sphere of expansive government.
If anyone wants to look at how regulations run a muck in government (besides the IRS regulations), all they need to do is look at the manuals used for billing regulations for Medicare. They will understand how there can be so much fraud and abuse taking place. It literally takes a team of consultants to insure hospitals are following all of the regulations 100% correctly. No one human being could know all the rules or even know to ask a question on 100% of the issues that may be covered by CMS. And every year congress updates the medicare program which adds hundreds of pages of additional regulation for someone to know and understand.
Do you think medicare regulations are unique ?
If not why do you think any regulation works ?
One of the problems I have debating regulation here, is that I face you and Pat and others arguing hypothetical regulation in a mythical world.
While I do not think that a priori regulation can be net positive even there.
The fact is regulation exists in the real world.
And in the real world it does not resemble what you argue. In the real world it is disasterous messy incoherent destructive garbage.
Dave “And in the real world it does not resemble what you argue. In the real world it is disasterous messy incoherent destructive garbage.”.
There is a difference between 70,000+ billing codes for hospital services and government regulations insuring safety of some consumer items that if they are not present, people could have a negative consumer outcome ( death).
In my world I do not want what we have today. I do not want people answerable to government like we have today. I want government answerable to the people which is something we lost years ago.
When it comes to regulation, I want the government to use common sense when they determine why regulation is required and then have to explain why and how it is implemented. I prefer a regulation where meat processing plants do not regularly process rats with meat byproducts when making hot dogs or hamburger. But there is absolutely no reason to have hundreds of pages of billing requirements for Medicare, especially when just a small percent of that number is the bases for their final payment.
“There is a difference between 70,000+ billing codes for hospital services and government regulations insuring safety of some consumer items that if they are not present, people could have a negative consumer outcome ( death).”
No there is not a difference – the entirety of the real world is incredibly complex.
Here is a short clip demonstrating that even something as simple as a pencil is beyond the ability of any of us.
The nature of government is what it is. Wishing it to be different does not make it so.
The purported quote of Washington “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action”
Says so much – Government is a necessity. It is also something we should always distrust
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”
There are many threats to liberty – government is always the greatest.
You want to go to some different arrangement as if it is possible to stay there statically.
It is not.
“I want the government to use common sense when they determine why regulation is required and then have to explain why and how it is implemented. I prefer a regulation where meat processing plants do not regularly process rats with meat byproducts when making hot dogs or hamburger.”
So you have read the jungle.
It is fiction.
While congress investigated several times and never found anything, but do to the outcry the book created went forth with regulation anyway. In fact the overall quality of food – including meat rose during the period it was purportedly going to hell.
Our handling of food changes over time – to our benefit. Those changes often bring new problems along with new benefits.
There was no meat packing industry prior to the late 1800’s.
It arrose as a result of the ability of railroads to transport food – particularly meat great distances.
That meant you could raise a steer in OK, slaughter in in Chicago and eat it in Philadelphia.
If all went right. But the greater the distance and the slower the speed of transport the more critical refridgeration became. Solving precisely this problem has been eternal with regard to food.
Today, I can have fresh strawberries in February – at not much higher cost than “in season”.
Regulation did not make this possible, nor did it make it safer.
We figured out how to provide more batter, cheaper food because that is what people wanted.
Even accidentally selling people bad food, is rare – far rarer than eating bad food when we grew our own.
You keep going back to common sense.
What is “Common sense” ?
Many things people commonly beleive tot be true are not.
For the most part “common sense” to me, means first order thinking.
In our own lives – that is perfectly fine. If we miss the 2nd and 3rd order effects – that is our problem, further in our own lives we can almost always get away with first order thinking – because we just adapt when we face 2nd and 3rd order consequences.
That does not work with government. Whatever we legislate, or regulate, trying to revist that to correct for the discovery of errors is damn near impossible.
In the real world nearly everything is accomplished by iterative refinement.
That is a process which allows us to (to some extent) ignore 2nd and 3rd order effects until the actually occur.
Top down processes do not allow for that.
I just watched a Netflix special on the Voyager project that is a good demonstration of all this.
The NASA Voyager team knew from the start that they had to consider every single possibility no matter how remote in their design – because from the moment the rockets fired there was no means to change the craft. Despite agressively “what-if” ing the project, within minutes of launch they encountered problems they had not anticipated. Voyager 2 (launched before Voyager 1), went crazy nearly immediately – because the craft was powered up before launch and during lauch was experiencing a bunch of forces that the developers had not considered and even though it was not deployed yet since it was powered on it was following its programming to try to compensate for what the rocket was doing.
This was just the first of thousands of unanticipated 2nd and 3rd order effects the developers had to address.
As launched they could not have even gotten the images of saturn they managed – much less uranus and neptune.
In 2012 35 years after launch Voyager left the solar system – still sending information back to us something that was not possible in 1977.
The point is that no matter how hard we try – we can not anticipate the future, we can not even anticipate the real outcomes of our own actions. We quite often do not get the first order results right much less anything deeper.
Nearly everything in nature, in existence, in human action is the consequence of bottom up iterative refinement processes.
Government is inherently top down. It is something we are not good at – no matter what we might think. We can not plan our society, our lives.
Top down government must be kept as simple as possible. We can not know what we need to know to do more than those core functions I repeatedly offer.
We might on occasion accidentally get things right – or right enough. but that is rear, and not repeatable. Governing is not iterattive refinement, it involves no learning mechanism.
And what you call common sense is both often wrong and very dangerous.
Dave you and I will NEVER agree. And I will NEVER convince you that my position is right and you will NEVER convince me to accept your position on no government regulations. You can post 1000 more comments and I will not change. I can post until 2030 and if you and I are still living, you will never change. That’s just a fact of life we will have to live with.
You will accept deaths of a few people as the price of freedom to do whatever you want. I will not accept that liability and fear of bankruptcy will keep everyone safe. If my level of acceptable regulations saves a few lives that your freedom from regulation would not save. then I accept that interference. And don’t try to tell me that all government regulation has not saved one life. That is BS. Your problem is I can not prove that because someone not dying can not be documented as proving something works. Only when something fails and someone dies can failure be proven. if there is risk in the safety of the action and that risk is high enough to warrant regulation, then I will support that over no regulation.
Hypothetical
For every $1T we can save one person from dying of cancer (or more accurately extend their life).
How much should we spend ?
For $16T – we can save 16 People – but then everyone in the country will have to live in abject poverty – for the sake of argument you can assume that millions to not dies as a result of living in abject poverty.
“Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
― Winston S. Churchill
There are two issues with your argument.
The first is the presumption that there are things that we can not put a price on.
Whether we agree on the price, everything has a price.
The second is that paying the price for some benefit – like the whatever is saved by regulation does not incur a cost – aside from the intangible cost in freedom.
You are free to beleive somethings can not be priced in your own personal life.
You can not do so within government.
Because government can not make decisions without a price, and because government will inevitably value that thing much lower than you.
I am not surprised that Medicare has hundreds of pages of billing requirements.
I would note that I can sum the complete scope of government in 3 sentences,
And yet our criminal law alone runs thousands of pages – even confined to the scope I impose.
Architect’s produce drawings and specs used to build buildings.
One of the critical rules of construction documents is to the greatest extent possible specify WHAT you want, not how to do it. How is the responsibility of the builder – not the designer.
When the architect says HOW to do something – if that does not provide the expected results the architect is responsible.
When the architect says HOW to do something – that drives costs up, the contract no longer has the freedom to reduce costs, to come up with a better way, to use their experience.
One of the differences between torts and regulation – is torts specifies What we want – to the greatest extent possible a harm free society.
Regulation always dictates how to do something, not what. to achieve.
We should be saying “you may not produce meat that makes people sick” – except that Torts already does that.
We should not be saying you must butcher the cow in this way.
I would further remind you that the market is designed by its DNA to always seek to profit.
That is good and we want it.
But when we try to ensnare it in narrow laws – rather than broad principles, we incentivize circumventing the laws and regulations. Looking for so called “loopholes”.
But that is a misnomer. Calling something a “loophole” presumes that when you tell someone HOW to do something that they should automatically know to give you WHAT you want.
That presumption is false. When you dictate HOW, you no longer control WHAT.
It is the classic – you can have this, or you can have that, but not both.
So what tends to happen with regulation is that as people figure out how to do exactly as we tell them – and still profit – quite often not producing WHAT we want, we make ever more rules to close what we call loopholes.
Got it, ok, thank Ron.
Mike Hatcher
Duck! 🤬
Trump’s nominee was almost as bad as the Washington Judge who created standing from thin air, or the one from Hawaii who thinks he has national jurisdiction and thinks that the same EO is either constitutional or not depending on who issues it,
or things that campaign promises are admissible.
There are alot of nominees ignorant of the law, who end up on the courts.
I agree there are a lot of dumb bunnies appointed by both parties.
So why aren’t you speaking out more firmly about this crop of unqualified dopes Poo Poo is appointing, not only in the judiciary, but unqualified second raterz throughout the government?
I have spoken out about those who are unqualified.
At the same time if we are all required to speak out with regard to every idiot that is ever appointed or elected to government there would be no time to live.
Another reason to limit government is to reduce the number of idiots we have to protest.
This particular nominee has withdrawn.
I am more ambivalent – I am not entirely sure a signle bad performance in a cattle call confirmation hearing is damning.
I do not know alot about this guy. Except that he works for the FEC as an ALJ – which is a possible prequalifier for a federal judiciary position.
He aparently has hear thousands of cases already – but the procedural rules for Administrative Law are completely different from criminal and civil law, and he clearly has no experience with those. At the same time the questions were basic and any law school student should know what a motion in limenee is or what the Daubert standard is.
Even though they are outside his area of practice – he should have boned up on them before the hearing.
It is his lack of preparation that is most damning.
Past this guy – while there are still a few rotten apples in Trump’s nominees – and the Senate’s role in advise and consent is part of weeding those out. Most of Trumps nominees are better than any president in my life time.
And a substantial portion are either federalists or highly recomended by federalists.
Trump may rue nominating them when some issues come before the courts,
but for now we have a now crop of federal judges who are highly skeptical of broad federal powers, and that is a very good thing,
I am still reserving final judgement on Gorsuch, but all current indications are he will be a far batter justice than Scalia. That he is likely to pick up the pen of originalism that Scalia wielded and correct many of Scalia’s more egregious errors.
That Gorsuch is madisonian – i.e. the constitution is a sequence of enumerated specific powers, whatever is not permitted teh federal government is denied.
Scalia’s fall back was to a democratic legislature, that what was not denied to the federal governnment was permitted and that killing stupid and overly expansive law was the responsibility of the electorate and the legislature.
Trump is substantially shrinking the upper management of government.
That alone means a radical reduction in 2nd raters.
Past that Trump’s cabinet appointments have been stellar. Gorsuch is at worst a good choice and potentially seismic.
Further despite the crap spewed by the Left Trump – as I would expect from the head of a Billion dollar enterprise, appoints very capable people, has high expectations of them, and mostly allows them to do their job.
I beleive there is some very deliberate good cop/bad cop going on with Tillerson, so I do not know whether the purported disputes between them are real.
I do think Trump is very unhappy with Sessions, but he has not asked him to resign.
I think Sessions is an extremely honorable person.
I also think he is wrong, and probably Trumps worst appointment, He should be somewhere other that DOJ.
You rant that Trump is destroying our image abroad.
I think Obama was possibly the most likeable president we have had. I would agree that the world liked him. They gave him the nobel prize for likeablility.
But no one respected him, and therefore they did not respect the US.
I do not think other world leaders like Trump.
Respect ? I do not know.
Fear him ? Certainly. Regardless, accross the globe countries are grasping that the US is going to look out for its own interests once again and the consequences are both positive and far reaching.
Whether you like it or not, Trump’s first year has an enormous amount of accomplishments.
They many not be ones you like, but they are very real.
And thus far they appear to have positive effects, for most americans, and for the world.
Obama sounded good, he “felt our pain” he offered policies that appealed to us.
But they were chimera’s and did not work.
Trump is coarse, he is blunt, he “tells it like it is”, he is sometimes wrong. He is not hesitant or tepid or bland. He gets things done, while he sells his policies – atleast to his supporters, more important than whether they are emotionally appealing or sound good – they appear to work.
You say Obama is responsible for the current growth.
Are you saying that his policies are so weak that it took 8 years before they were able to sustainably rise above 1.8% growth ?
I would have been happy to see 3, 4, 5% growth during Obama’s presidency.
Yu claim I am some stuborn ideologue. Get a clue. I beleive that Obama’s policies did not work because they were bad.That the results were inevitable,
But I can also tell you with no doubt at all, that had Obama been able to hit 4-5% growth for a couple of years, I would have had to change my views.
I am ferverent in what I advocate for because it works both in theory and in practice.
Trump is far from perfect – even as measured by my principles and standards.
But he is better than Obama or Bush – and miracle of miracles, he is doing better than Obama and Bush.
We shall see if he can sustain that.
We shall see if he can exceed Clinton and Reagan – because that appears where we are headed.
I would note that Reagan was not very popular when the economy was still declining towards the start of his term. But as the economy improved he slowly rose to near godlike stature.
All Trump must do is sustain 3% growth and he is near certain to get re-elected – probably in a landslide. I know you can not see that right now, but this overheated politically venemous environment is unsustainable. The left is burning itself out.
Trumps core support is only about 35%, but it is incredibly strong, and it is passive.
Meaning it is not going to wear itself out. And so long as other things improve – the middle will eventually get tired of the left. You can only cry wolf so long – before people expect to see an actual wolf or lose interest.
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/943164642649546754
I love to see all the garbage purged, but I have been ranting about that forever.
I have not had alot of support over killing ExIm or anything else.
Why should I find your new found interest in purging “corporatism” anything but hypocrisy
Regardless, I will take it – and hope that you are still opposed to this nonsense when Democrats are foisting it on us. .
It’s not if NN is positive, neutral, or negative…
The process for deciding was corrupted.
It needs to be reheard.
https://twitter.com/agschneiderman/status/942802222886334464
Doubting Donnie Enablers Note:
The debt increased 8T under Obama.
NO ONE has an accurate model of the effect of taxes.
The best we know is that everyone is wrong.
We do absolutely know that the negative revenue effects are not linear, and that corporate and upper margin cuts are less damaging and possibly net positive.
But we are far from being able to model them.
We also know absolutely that the middle class portions of this tax cut, are purely revenue negative.
So should we eliminate those ?
Good News (if you’re a 1%-Er ): you get 3/4 of the tax cut $$$$!
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/domestic-taxes/365628-jct-middle-class-gets-quarter-of-individual-tax-cuts-in-gop-tax
I would argue your facts – but I don’t care, I hope you are right, because the more heavily skewed the tax cut is toward reducing the burden on investment the larger the positive economic benefits.
That BTW comes from numerous economists – including Obama’s CEA Christine Romer.
That’s because they pay more taxes than 90% of taxpayers combined. And, remember, close to 50% of Americans pay no income tax at all. So they won’t get a tax cut, because you can’t cut zero. Well, actually you can, but that’s a whole nother story……
Word games, Jay, just word games.
The tax cut bill isn’t perfect, but it will cut taxes for more than 80% of Americans….and that would be closer to 95%, if it weren’t for the confiscatory state rates in CA, NY, CT, IL and NJ. But why should the rest of the country subsidize those states for not managing their budgets?
Priscilla, “But why should the rest of the country subsidize those states for not managing their budgets?”
Could it be these are all states controlled by liberals and they believe in wealth confiscation and redistribution from tax credits paid to individuals with no tax bill to millionaires getting tax welfare on SALT deductions? And doesn’t Jay live in CA?
Well, Dave, no insults from me today
We both used a lot of words with little sway
Rather than look our differences as adversity
I choose to see them as diversity
(and nature shows us that diversity is good for survival)
Some people prefer the city and others the farm
and since you have a principle of “no harm”
I say use your mindset to get through the night
and hold your ground, Black Knight!
Where have all the Deficit Hawks here gone, long time passing?
Tax cuts and deficit reduction are not and never have been mutually exclusive.
In fact many many fiscal conservatives have moved to deliberately cut taxes as a means of forcing those on the left to make the difficult choices required to cut spending.
The fact that has been effective merely proves the fiscal stupidity of the left.
I have written a very short satire about TNM. I posted it under the “Wild Card” debate tab if anyone wishes to read it.
Mike Hatcher
Republicans: lying mother-rapers…
GOP: Good Old Pinocchios
In what world is it that you think Collins statement of a priority over which she has no control constitues a lie ?
Does Collins have 51 votes in the senate ?
Does she control the calendar ?
She can say what she wants.
She can not say what will happen.
Didnt she publically state she wouldn’t vote for the tax bill if that promise to her wasn’t included?
Isn’t a broken promise a lie?
First, given the fact that you would call a weather prediction a lie if Trump issued it and the temp was 1 degree off, I am not prepared to accept that anyone said what you say they say.
Separately – I will be happy to permanently bar from congress everyone who has made a committment to voters and reneged. No one would be left. But I am not going to hold Collins to a standard you will not hold Schumer and Pelosi to.
Further, Collins is not my problem. The people of Maine can decide about her.
I do not think she has a problem.
I do not know if Collins broke a promise because I can not trust you to accurately represent what she may have said in context.
I do know that Obama broke innumerable promises and democrats continue to vote for him.
Dave “In what world is it that you think Collins statement of a priority over which she has no control constitutes a lie ?”
Jay suffers from selective amnesia like so many in the political world today. They have a cow over Corker and Collins, along with Murkowski and others that got something they wanted included in the tax reform legislation.
But they forget about Mary Landrieu with the Louisiana Purchase and Ben Nelson with the Cornhusker Kickback where they held out on the PPACA getting something in return for their votes. Nelson finally approved without the kickback because the Democrat house objected, but Louisiana received additional funding under the guise for what they deemed a flawed calculation under the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) program. Whatever that was, she got more funding.
If you are for something, this stuff is fine. If your against something, this is the most god awful display of partisan politics that has ever occurred.
I think it sucks no matter what party does it. Drilling in the artic wildlife refuge should not be part of a tax reform package just as some fix to some government funding should not be part of a healthcare bill for Louisiana. They should have been part of an energy bill and budget legislation, but that is how Washington works and as long as that is how Washington works, then whats good for the pigs is good for the hogs.
Yeah and the democrats are all so outstanding individuals the never lie. Democrats 58, independents caucusing with democrats 2 vote that passed legislation 60 democrats.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/pelosi-obamacare-was-bipartisan-only-final-tweaks-made-reconciliation?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpJeE9HWmpPVE5qWVRRMSIsInQiOiJLYXhpeW5GRFFVN01iUFY2T08xV1RUNk9BMnhhOEhiY0RWTTlqYzBhRlRWOVdFdktTXC9OTDcyWDlqRHNXMXdVUGttQ083MjNtTHFnMXlQcXdtWERucWcwaExYZWxwakZKSGprZFJTZWVFSmVYeHZUWlI4REl4VmVObFlcL1FyUVwvKyJ9
“Republicans: lying mother-rapers…”
Seeking to win friends and influence people ?
You lose an election because you labeled half the country hateful hating haters,
so you think calling them “lying mother rapers” is going to help with the next election ?
Beyond that you have “discovered” that politicans lie ! News at 11!!
If you like your doctor you can keep them.
If you like your insurance you can keep them.
The average family will save 2500/year.
I’m insulting tRUMP and his followers because I know it IS effective.
I follow this course of action because it proved so successful for Poo Poo last election.
tRrump did EXACTLY the same insulting stchick against Clinton and Dems, and WON.
Proof that invective against him and #Trumpanzees who still support him is effective is evident in polls tracking American opinion. Negatives have risen in direct proportion to public contemp for him voiced everywhere: by well known cartoonists, comedians, actors, writers, columnists ..and of course by a HUGE preponderance of social media. I’m just doing my own small part to return America to civility through vileness.
tRUMP raised the level of acceptable vileness of a candidate for high office, and now that’s turned and bitten him in his flabby flatulent ass (see, I’m adding to the anti Schlump vote].
Look at just a few of the recent polls.
“Newsweek: President Donald Trump will get crushed by any Democrat running against him in the 2020 presidential election, a poll released Thursday indicated. Asked whether they would vote for Trump or a hypothetical Democratic candidate in the next election, just 36 percent in the Politico/Morning Consult poll said they would vote to give the president a second term. That compared with 46 percent who indicated they would vote for Trump’s Democratic opponent, whoever that may be. A further 18 percent said they remained undecided.”
“Forty-one percent of adults believe Congress should hold impeachment hearings to remove President Trump from the White House, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday.
Of those who believe Congress should move to impeach Trump, 70 percent are Democrats, 40 percent are independents, and 7 percent are Republicans.”
That means more want him impeached than will vote for him again.
It also means if Dems take over Congress, they WILL move to impeach the DISGUSTING LYING SOB (two more undecides just decided yes).
I’m subscribed on a cooking food blog. And two or three of the commenters keep posting recipes for Russian food. Think they’re bots, undermining Western food?
Guess this is news too the social media neutralized brain cell voters.
#bantheinternetcomments
What is it that you are worried about ?
Are the recipes you care about being deleted ?
While I really do not buy this “russian bots dominate everything” garbage.
I do not care.
Are the russian recipes being posted toxic ? If not how is the world worse off because there are more russian recipes posted at no cost to you than you would prefer ?
Why do you think that in a forum where speach can be infinite, someone else’s speach comes at a cost to you ?
Regardless, do you really think Putin has a secret plan to take over food ?
While I doubt the accuracy of most of these “Argh! Russia” stories – at their core is a collection of false assumptions:
That all anonymous speach is bad.
That all anonymous speach is russian.
That all anonymous Russian Speech is Putin
That the US owns the internet and only americans are entitled to a view on anything.
I have posted elsewhere as JBSAY about “pussy riot”. Am I an american troll/bot ?
BTW you also radically over estimate the capability of Artificial intelligence.
The best AI in existance is reactive not proactive – Alexa can do what we ask and generally understand what we want.
There is little in the way of AI that can post cognizantly on Twitter, follow a topic and introduce new material that is on point and people will relate to.
Further contra the left sudden conception of the Russians as powerful and omniscient.
They have an absolutely abysmal understanding of americans.
Without that there are only a few “influences” that work – typically compromise, blackmail and bribery – which they are good at.
As evidence – the Russians repeatedly shopped to Trump evidence of corruption on the part of a big Clinton donor are the core to the OPO research they kept pushing. This is what Natalia brought Trump Jr.
The Trump’s rightly discarded that – because you can not change the votes of americans by demonstrating misconduct on the part of a donor. It is near useless as OPO research.
It is useless – BECAUSE the russians do not understand how americans think
If Putin does nto understand something that is both fundimental and not all that complex,
How effective do you think that these mythical Russian Bots are ?
But in the end you continue to argue the same stupidity.
The core of your “Russian influence” nonsense is the presumption that but for Russia – voters would have voted differently. You are actually insulting voters. And you do not understand that.
You understand people about the same as Putin does – but that is not surprising, given the relationship between the left and totalitarianism.
The left and the media as an example is constantly selling this Koch controls everything nonsense – despite the fact that half a dozen wealthy democrats outspend the Koch’s all the time.
But in the minds of those on the left all outcomes they do not like are the result of bad influences on voters.
You do not even really beleive in YOUR core value of democracy – atleast not unless you have total control of the minds of voters.
There is good reason the left evokes images of 1984 – because you really beleive that garbage.
“What is it that you are worried about ?
Are the recipes you care about being deleted ?”
Not only numb to nuance, deaf to sarcasm.
“While I really do not buy this “russian bots dominate everything” garbage.
I do not care.”
You don’t care if Russian Bots infiltrate social media?
Are you daft too?
Jay “You don’t care if Russian Bots infiltrate social media?”
So a free and open internet is fine unless it is in opposition to your political thinking?
Where we fail is not controlling who gets on the internet and post stuff. Where we fail is in the fact so many mindless individuals are uneducated and believe everything on the internet is true.
“So a free and open internet is fine unless it is in opposition to your political thinking?”
So you’re saying Bots that falsely pretend to be from Americans but are directed by a foreign governmental OK if they reflect YOUR views?
Say it ain’t so, Ron…
Mike, “It ain’t so”
Once again written words miscommunicate my thoughts. Jay has been carrying on like Trump is running America like the midget in North Korea runs that country and how bad net neutrality is going to be when a free and open internet is taken away.
Now he is having a cow because the free and open internet is allowing anyone that wants to post political comments and positions to do just that. (Russian influence in getting Trump elected and all that crap)
So I asked him “So a free and open internet is fine unless it is in opposition to your political thinking?”
He can’t have it both ways A free and open internet where certain websites are blocked or their speed is reduced is not free and open.
My position on this issue. The internet is speech just like standing on the street corner or a newspaper. If I want to publish something in the paper and it is not inciting a riot or promoting an illegal activity, then that is my right and if I can pay the newspapers price for the ad, then that is what gets published. The newspaper also has the right to not publish the ad because they own the paper and control what is in it. But because the Joe Blows of the country don’t like the ads does not mean they have the right to block that ad from being published. Only I and the paper have that right.
As for the internet, the Russians have the right to post whatever they want to post. The ISP’s have the right to filter out what they want on their servers since they own the servers providing the information to their customers. The customers can contract with other ISP’s if they don’t like the service their ISP is providing.
But just because Jay does not like the idea that the Russians are posting stuff the the world wide net and people in the USA are reading it, regardless of truth or fiction, is no reason why censorship should take place.
Once we begin censoring things that look like they are from Russia, then we start down that slippery path where something that Israel posts may be blocked because the Muslims in America may not like it.
Does this clarify?
Once again, for clarity, that was my Say It Ain’t So Anonymous post you responded to Ron, not Mike’s response.
Sorry Jay. I did not see your comment concerning “anonymous” until after I posted that response. And since your clarification on the anonymous post did not have anything identifying it to any one prior comment, I had no idea what that pertained to. I don’t try to follow the comments on WordPress as after 100 or so, there is hardly anyway to keep track of who is commenting on what. I use the e-mail notifications and when I comment, I click on reply and hopefully it gets posted to the right place.
Also concerning your question about tablets and screens getting scrunched, that happens when a long link to an article is included and the link won’t wrap. That makes the print extremely small for tablets. I use a tablet for reading the e-mails, deleting the ones I want to delete and then use a desk top to reply to the ones I want to reply to. After there are over 200 or so comments, my tablet freezes up about 1/2 the time when Word Press is trying to load the comment, so I gave up on that awhile ago. After 1000. my desk top is not all that fast either, but at least it gets stuff loaded most of the time.
:”So you’re saying Bots that falsely pretend to be from Americans but are directed by a foreign governmental OK if they reflect YOUR views?:”
Nope, they are OK no matter what views they reflect.
It these hypothetical bots – because neither you nor the media have a clue regarding the state of AI today and you are so far off the mark it is nuts – actually exist so what ?
Was your vote changed by them ?
Your vote is the only one you control.
The only power you have over the vote of others is your words.
If you do not like what you think these hypothetical Russian bots are saying – the appropriate response is not to force their silence, but to speak to their error.
If a hypothetical Russian bot is more persuasive than you – there are only too possibilites.
We are doomed, and no amount of ranting on your part will change that.
Or you are so wrong you can not even out argue a mythical bot.
“Nope, they are OK no matter what views they reflect.”
I’ll try to explain this to you one more time, but I know it’s an exercise in futility, like trying to explain the subtleties of music or art to someone tone deaf or color blind.
You appear to be oblivious to the fact that aggregate opinion can be altered by repetitive messages. It doesn’t matter if your single opinion or mine isn’t changed, in an election the manipulation of even a few percentage points can INFLUENCE the outcome.
Those Russian bots were/are manipulative PROPAGANDA. Do you not remember worries over the effectiveness of propaganda directed at the US and out allies during WWII and the Cold War following it? If directed propaganda had no influence to alter minds and perception – and actions – do you think the massive efforts raised to counteract it a waste of time and resources?
Over the decades techniques to influence targeted responses have become both more subtitle and widespread. You would have to be braindead not to be aware that messages shape choice, the entire advertising industry is structured on that assumption.
Those Russian Bots touting tRUMP and disparaging Clinton CERTAINLY had effect on the final results; we just don’t know (yet) how much effect they had. To state they had no effect shows abysmal ignorance. To say you don’t care if foreign powers continue to interfere in our election process, is traitorous.
Would I like to ban foreign bots from flooding social media with political products generated by governments antithetical to our interests? If there was a way to identify them as Bots (messages generated by groups pretending to be individuals, sent from centralized locations with the same Server IP Address) I definitely would be in favor of it.
I’m certainly in favor of social media providers like Twitter and Facebook etc identifying those posts as suspicious bots – which they can do now. And some services are doing that to alert subscribers to manipulative posts.
For example, the other day I wanted to order food online, but first checked out the restaurant comments on Yelp. This showed up at the review page:
“A number of positive reviews for this business originated from the same IP address… our automated recommendation software has taken this into account in choosing what reviews to display, but we wanted to call this to your attention because someone may be trying to artificially inflate the rating for this business.”
You get it now?

There is no such thing as agregate oppinion. In fact there is no such thing as collective action.
Evey choices humans make they make individually. We have no hive mind.
If Russia excercised “influence”: they did so on individuals who STILL made their choices freely.
This is the fundimental problem if this entire Russia/Trump nonsense.
You can not influence a percentage of voters without influencing a bunch of individuals.
You might find a few people who regret voting for trump.
You will find alot of people who believe that SOMEONE ELSE was influenced.
But you are not going to find a single individual that is going to say “Damn but for Russian influence I would have voted for Hillary”
With respect to your garbage collective argument – if true – i destroy’s democracy entirely.
It is estimated that the tilt of the media shifts the vote by 20 points relative to what would happen with a neutral press – are we protesting “media influence” ?
I do not honestly beleive the russians had any real influence – but you have not grasped – I DO NOT CARE, and there is a limit to the headway you can make with others – because that individual who thinks they were brainwashed by the russians does nto exist.
Of course INDIVIDUALS are influenced – they are influenced, by campaigns; by the press, by the dress of the candidates, by the weather, the phase of the moon. by political adds.
They are influenced by the free expression of others.
The internet is not the property of the US.
People – including Russians are free to speak on it – in fact we want them to.
The US used to actually spend money to allow russians to speak free of the censorship of the USSR.
You do not seem to grasp that free speach is much more than a constitutional right – it is a natural one.
You can not prevent russian free speach without making this nation into a closed totailtarian box.
But that is what you want.
While the “influence of Russia” was inconsequential (and on net pro clinton). It would not matter if it was not.
Part of this is because you do not understand what freedom and rights are.
And because you do not understand why you lost.
Which is also part of why you are blind to the very real possibility you may lose in 2018 and 2020.
While Trump did, and has done incredibly politically astute things.
He did not win because of his political skills.
He did not win because of Comey
Or Russia.
He won because of your failure.
But back to the russian garbage.
Atleast the Russian trolls argument that the left used to run had a tiny patina of plausibility.
This Russian “bots” argument is complete idiocy. It is a delberate lie crafted by a knowing few to attempt to deceive the people who they think are stupid.
No one who has a clue about computers, AI or bots would buy it.
To give you the slightest clue, the “state of the art” for “bots” russian or otherwise is email spam.
And most of the good and successful spam does nto come from bots.
SPAM does work – some people are actually influenced – but the percentage is miniscule,
less than 1/10000 of a percent. SPAM works because it is near zero cost. Because the actual degree of influence is inconsequential.
Email SPAM is far easy that producing what is being attributed to bots.
The entire Russian bots argument is exactly the same as the Russia hacked the DNC argument, it is an evidence free fallacy produced by purported experts who in offering it prove they are either not experts or are bought.
It took almost a decade to expose the Stuxnet virus as a US created virus, and that was only established by Snowden’s leaks.
Why ? Do you think that the Iranians are incapable for decompiling code ? That they can not check date and time stamps ? that the can not verify what keyboard was used to produce something ? That the Iranians are far far far stupider than the people at Crowdsource ?
The reason the IRanians were not able to establish where Stuxnet came from is because CIA/NSA are not stupid. They made sure it did not have US fingerprints on it.
Any credible expert will tell you that absent a leak it is impossible to trace the source of a virus or hack of a nation state today. Why ? Because wherever you think some code came from is pretty much the place you can be certain it did not.
You think the russians are so smart they hacked the US election “influenced” myriads of voters,
and then you think they are so stupid they left fingerprints pointing back to themselves ?
If you think you know where something came from absent a leak – you are wrong.
Frankly in the case of russia – even with a leak – you are probably wrong.
Have you ever heard of a Matryoshka doll ?
The russians are abysmally bad at understanding US politics – hence their stupid beleif that dirt on a Clinton donor would be considered to have value to Trump – american voters are not influenced much by attacks on the donors to specific candidates.
But they are very good at Matryoshka dolls. Whatever you think Russia has done, it is either what someone else has done, or what Russia wants you to think they have done.
All social media posts are manipulative. That is the nature of social media.
No I do not want Social media looking for bots.
Any bot they are actually capable of detecting is so stupid as to be meaningless.
What you call efforts to get bots – I call an excuse for left wing nut censorship.
Contra to your claims not only is social media abysmally bad at identifying bots, it is abysmally bad at any form of censorship it has attempted. The net result is either biased or so broad and crude it kills off speach no on thinks is illegitimate.
But just to be clear as far as I am concerned all speech is legitimate.
The primary means that Social media uses to identify “bots” is by identifying accounts that are pseudonyms. I do not want social media doing that – and if you are not brian dead neither do you.
Anonymous free speach was an important factor in bringing down the USSR. It remains a key factor in exposing human rights violations accross the world.
You who are desparately afraid of big business want to give facebook and twitter carte blanche to do what the USSR was never able to do.
Do you beleive your yelp example was about a bot ?
Or a single pissed off customer.
If you beleive the former – you need a remedial course in Internet 101.
Further if Yelp shows a bunch of bad reviews from a single IP, I would likely conclude – boy that place really pissed someone off.
Regardless, you are free to draw your own conclusion.
Further the yo9u are making a catagorical error.
Yelp reviews and facebook adds and twitter accounts are behaviorally sufficiently different that your example is meaningless.
Have you actually ever been on facebook or twitter ? Frankly have you been on Yelp ?
It does not sound like it.
If a billion tweets went out from a single IP in st. petersburg and many accounts saying saying
“Clinton sent top secret emails over the unsecured internet”.
Would that tweet be false ?
You keep making the same nonsensical argument here with respect to my posts.
You seem to think that where something comes from or how much of it is posted has the slightest bearing with regard to the truth or falsity of the statements made.
Or are we back to the nonsense about RT adds with a potato that looked like Clinton’s face – do you think that flipped the election ?
What false story about Clinton did millions of people get priot to the election ?
Or are you saying that russian bots are not allowed to tweet something true because it might influence the election ?
I do not honestly care if there were billions of false tweets.
Though if there were – unless trump had iron clad control of the media – there would have been 24×7 coverage of the false stories russian bots were spraying social media with and Trump would have lost the election.
Your entire meme requires:
An impossible degree of AI and sophistication on the part of russia.
Everyone missing bazillions of false tweets just prior to the election.
A large pervent of people beleiving them and changing their vote.
And last but not least – the idiotic view that voters are not allowed to make mistakes.
There is so much evil that will come from this very stupid nonsensical idea.
If you can provent Russia from tweeting about an election – then you can prevent Sorros or Koch.
If you beleive that we should be allowed to control what is tweeted based on content – then why allow anything democrats post ? Or republicans – who is to say whose ideas are to bad to be expressed.
Remember the diatribe about the deceptive use of words ?
“Would I like to ban foreign bots from flooding social media with political products generated by governments antithetical to our interests?”
“political products” – aka – free political expression I do not like.
No I do not want to ban anyone saying anything,
I certainly do not want to ban political speach I do not like
You are making my case for the error of common sense. I am pretty sure you think your post is common sense.
Do you really think it is common sense to ban the political speach that you think others should not hear ?
“You don’t care if Russian Bots infiltrate social media?”
No.
Why should I ?
Are Russian bots going to change your vote ?
If they will not change yours, why do you care ?
In the highly unlikely instance that they do change someone else’s vote – why do you care ?
Aren’t people free to vote as they please ?
Or are they only free to vote as the please – so long as you have total control of what they see and hear ?
“To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Justice Brandeis.
That Annon above is me, Jay..
WordPress is making it hard for me to see what buttons I’m pressing
As Christmas is fast approaching, to show good cheer to one and all, I offer this gift to the Anti-Progressives here, with expectation it will bring you joy!
MERRY XMAS!
“The sexual revolution is now officially devouring its own children
By Oleg Atbashian
First published in FrontPage Mag, since then updated and illustrated
Something’s rotten in the fairy-tale kingdom of progress. It is crumbling like the magical land of Fantastica after people stopped believing in it. Progs are melting like toons under the green shower of Judge Doom. Is our never-ending narrative finished? Comrade Red Square investigates.”
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/american-gyno-stalinism-on-the-ruins-of-shagadelic-utopia-t19875.html
Ted For Prez 2020
We have been through this garbage before .
GSA’s “rules” are irrelevant.
You keep thinking that you can massage the 4th amendment out of existance.
Neither the government nor GSA can control the 4th amendment.
If you think that “.gov” means government ownership you are entirely clueless as to the operation of the Internet.
While the government “owns” the .gov domain name – that mearly means you can not locates something under .gov without government complicity.
It does not mean government owns everything under .gov.
BY LAW GSA is obligated to provides serivces to the transition.
Lets say you are convicted of a crime and ordered to do community service clearing Trash,
and you show up as ordered and hand the foreman directing your efforts a bunch of “rules”.
So you think those “rules” have any meaning ?
A valid contract has atleast 3 elements, offer, acceptance, consideration.
Given that GSA was obligated by law to provide the Trump Transition services, there can be no consideration. There is no valid agreement.
GSA can “impose” whatever rules is wishes, those rules are meaningless.
To the extent that the Trump Transition complied that is merely politeness.
I would also note that there is plenty in writing involving both the GSA and obama administration saying exactly the opposite – that all communications would be private.
And Finally – we are well past the Transition at this point
Trump is president. The GSA is under TRUMP’s authority.
Whatever they might have said, wish, beleive, think they agreed to, they have no independent authority of their own.
You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that the constitution confers the entire power of the executive branch to a single person – the President.
Not the DOJ, not the GSA.
Absolutley had Mueller gotten a warrant – the GSA would have been obligated to turn records over.
But even you nonsensical argument that the records are owned by the government – which is refuted by the presidential transition act. That means they are owned by TRUMP as president – not the GSA. The executive branch of government and the president are one in the same.
This was very stupid on Mueller’s part. The vast majority of actual criminal and civil rights lawyers – not left wing nut law professors agree.
It is near certain that Mueller would have been able to get a warrant.
But it would have cost him two things:
1). He would have had to lay out in public “probably cause” – an actually swear to the evidence demonstrating it.
2),. He almost certainly would have been severely narrowed in scope, because courts do not authorize fishing expeditions.
Finally, by your own assertions – this is over. You do not expect Mueller to find evidence of Trump/Russia collusion, you do nto even think he is really investigating that any more.
The investigation has moved to merely trying to see if it can catch any body in a lie or an unrelated crime.
IF the underlying basis for the investigation is DEAD, then the investigation is dead.
Lets put it into a criminal context.
If a special prosecutor is tasked with Investigating Gotti’s murder of some competitor, and in the course of the investigation they determine that Gotti had nothing to do with the murder,
But Gotti and his people have testified to a bunch of other things, the SC can not continue the investigation unilaterally in the hope of finding evidence that some of that other testimony is a lie.
That is a part of what the 4th amendment means.
You can not investigate someone because you want to.
You can not investigate someone because you hope to find evidence of a Crime.
You must investigate a specific allegation of a specific crime,
in the course of that investigation you can conduct searches and seizures ONLY where you can demonstrate PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime has been committed, by a specific person, and that the items being search are very likely to provide evidence of that.
You can not personally be investigated on any other basis, neither can Trump.
Anything else is the rule of man not law.
It is the substitution of personal animus for the rule of law.
“You keep thinking that you can massage the 4th amendment out of existance”
I’m not massaging anything.
The courts are defining what applies and doesn’t.
I linked to numerous decisions indicating those emails don’t have privacy protection.
As it stands now, THEY DONT.
And I’m betting you won’t see #PresidentPooPoo’s lawyers contesting it in court.
“I’m not massaging anything.
The courts are defining what applies and doesn’t.”
No they don’t. They decide what the constitution says.
The constitution is the law of the land – not what some judges which it said.
Not even if all 9 say otherwise.
You change the constitution by amending it not by changin interpretation.
“I linked to numerous decisions indicating those emails don’t have privacy protection.
As it stands now, THEY DONT.”
Bzzt, wrong. There are dozens of 4th amendment cases over the past 50 years.
You cite a few that are mostly off point and often do not support your argument.
There are several that go against you.
You are completely off base on ownership.
‘And I’m betting you won’t see #PresidentPooPoo’s lawyers contesting it in court.”
I do not expect Trump to contest this in court – because so long as he expects nothing damning in the documents Mueller’s mistake favors him.
You said Trump was running scared – the best sign of that would be if he DID contest this.
If he does not – you and Mueller should be running scared.
Muller is now in posession of much if not all of the Trump transition documents.
A leak would be damaging – probably criminally.
As best as we know right now only Mueller has these.
So any leak must come from Mueller.
You keep operating under the assumption that if only you had access to everything you would be able to find a crime.
But the odds are that if you had access to everything you would not find a crime,
but the probability is high that you will commit a crime.
Trump has constantly threatened Mueller not to cross some line.
You interpret that as Trump’s fear of what is on the other side.
You should consider that Trump may be waving a red flag in front of a bull.
And you and Mueller may find the sword behind the Muleta.
Trump has been working Mueller for a long time. Mueller’s approval rating is underwater.
That is horrible for a prosecutor. Mueller has only one job and americans imprlicitly favor prosecutors.
Of course the Trump lawyers are trying to take advantage of Muellers mistake to make him look bad.
No, the document cited is meaningless.
You can not change the rights of ownership with memo’s.
The creator of a document or their employer is the owner of a document – until there is a contractual change of ownership.
All the crap being offered regarding GSA is no different from policy documents from a companies outside IT consultant – they have very little meaning.
They are are most an attempt to limit the IT peoples liability.
Generally you can not limit liability for a deliberate act.
Regardless, you are absolutely correct that Trump’s lawyers are deliberately trying to make Mueller look bad.
And Mueller is absolutely and stupidly playing into your hands.
As to what are Trump’s lawyers afraid of ?
If they are actually afraid of anything – expect them to file sharp challenges to Mueller’s warrantles searches immediately.
If they do not – that means Trump and co either believe or know there is nothing to find.
Attacking Mueller for making an unforced error – make Mueller look bad, it does not make Trump look afraid.
You and Mueller are betting your reputations that something will be found.
You have convinced yourself without evidence that Trump is guilty of something.
It is possible you are right, but it is not likely.
The standard for an investigation, for the 4th amendment, for the rule of law, is not possible but unlikely.
When Mueller comes up dry – you risk the entire politics flipping.
Republicans lost ground against Bill Clinton over time – even though he actually and obviously committed a crime.
Do you expect anyone not in the left or in the tank anti-trump to remain with you when Mueller fizzles ?
Money money money 🏦🏦🏦🏦🏦
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-stands-to-save-millions-under-new-tax-measure-experts-say/2017/12/20/6d29a4c4-e59a-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html
So neither Trump nor republicans can pass any law that they personally benefit from ?
Does that standard apply to democrats ?
The tRUMP brand – deadly in NYC.
Any of you New Moderate regulars fall into these business categories?
“health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, business consulting, athletics, brokerage services, financial services, or any other trade or business whose principal asset is the reputation or skill of the business owner.” ?
If so you may want to check out Section 1202(e)(3)(A) of the new Internal Revenue Code, to see if your earnings will be effected.
It would help if you were more specific – the section of the code you cited is not new.
1. The Old Lady, TNM, and a Train
Once upon a time a crippled old lady tried to wheel herself in her wheelchair across a railroad track at TNM. Unfortunately her wheel got stuck on an elevated spike in the middle of the tracks and she was too weak to dislodge or get out of her chair. Off in the horizon, a train appeared, heading to the old lady. Comments had exceeded 200 so Rick was gone, JB and Roby were on a self imposed exile, and Pat had recently got angry about something so had stepped away just to cool off for awhile. This left Jay, Mike, Ron, Priscilla, dduck12, and Dave. Jay was first to act, he immediately started screaming obscenities at the conductor of the train and insulting him for driving too fast. Mike said the situation reminded him of a story from his past and started rambling about some memory which no one understood or cared for. Ron P recognized the wheelchair as one of those astronomically overpriced government subsidized devices and ran to the restroom to vomit.
Trump had just tweeted that morning that people who were stupid enough to get themselves stuck in wheelchairs should have to prove citizenship before receiving aid. Priscilla stated that she thought Trump’s statement was rash, and she disagreed with the policy, but she felt that his policies should be given a chance to work, so she would abide by them until further notice. Dduck12, sat back in an easy chair and fussed at the others in the group for not doing anything. This left Dave, he approached the woman and first explained that he had nothing against euthanasia and she was free to allow the train to hit her if that was her choice. The woman assured Dave that it was her desire to receive assistance from Dave in getting out of the train’s path. Dave then offered a contract where he would unilaterally assist her without charge, he explained that he intended to use kinetic energy to dislodge the woman from her chair and the path of the train. He further explained that while some might label this action as “force” it was not, citing a 7th century BC Scythian Philosopher, that absence of coercion, there is no force. He then further elaborated that his planned action was more closely aligned with the definition of “work” according to the textbook PHYSICS by Randall Knight, on page 17 where work is defined by velocity multiplied by (SPLAT!) The End
Mike Hatcher
(Reposted from the Wild Card tab per Rick’s request)
Mike, thank you for adding some humor at
this time. Ron
Very welcome Ron.
MH
🤩🤓🤗
Well said Jay!
MH
Excellent !
Thanks Dave,
I’m glad you liked it.
Mike Hatcher
Oh, that was great, Mike ~ Thanks!
Thanks Priscilla, to a degree I felt my story picked on you most, certainly it was harsher than the pass I essentially gave to JB and Roby. So I am glad you did not take offense, and glad you enjoyed it.
Mike Hatcher
MH, that was super excellent. I will accept it as my Holiday gift from TNM.
Warmest greetings to you, dduck12. I’m glad you liked it. MH
World 128, bullying thug and thugess 0.
WordPress has formatted my reply screen into tiny font size I can barely see.
Anyone else having this problem, on a tablet?
Where have all the Defucit Hawks gone – Reduex
https://twitter.com/jimpethokoukis/status/943946760229138438
There still around for now. They are called Democrats led by Chuck Shumer
I thought you hated Goldman Sachs ?
Don’t be silly.
That’s like generalizing to say I hate the weather forecaster.
I’m just reporting the current GS ‘weather’ forecast concerning the deficit.
And that forecast is warning of BAD WEATHER AHEAD!
But GS is not a “weather forecaster” and their record at “weather forecasting” has been abysmal.
Well once again who the heck do you believe?
http://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/heres-taxes-will-look-like-americas-highest-paying-jobs-151712396.html
According to the Tax Policy Center, this is how the higher paid professionals will be impacted by the new tax law. Middle class is defined as about $47,000 to $141,000 above that is considered upper income or higher income wage earners.
So do those making more than middle class income pay more or not? Shumer says all the cuts go to the rich. This says the richer income individuals will pay more.
Just some more partisan double talk.
Pick which one you want to believe. I won’t believe either one until proven when the 2018 taxes are filed.
Here’s another opinion, Ron:
The new Tax code has good and bad attributes.
What it is not – is most of what the left claims.
I might be interested in what you had to say – if anything that you said was accurate.
Unfortunately, the 2018 election cycle will have passed by the time we file 2018 taxes in *** 2019*** and they are analyzed. 🙂
What Jay said, above.
Maddow is an IYI.
She has embarrased herself repeatedly regarding Trump – ask her for his tax return.
You can not obstruct a non-crime.
Further the President can not obstruct justice by executing a legitimate constitutional power.
Nixon’s obstruction were for acts outside of his presidential powers – he arranged private payoff’s to the watergate burglars for their silence.
Clinton’s was for acts before he was president – using AK state troopers to facilitate and hide his liason’s.
The left is selling this garbage that motive can convert a lawful act into an unlawful on.
I am not ware of any otherwise legeal act that is a crime ONLY if you have bad intent.
This is a tiny permutation of the nonsense used with respect to Trump’s immigration EO – that somehow the EO was unconstutional because of Trump’s intent as expressed by his campaign remarks. That argument was so bad the Supreme court completely ignored it.
So long as an action is inside of Trump’s legal powers as president, it CAN NOT be obstruction.
Put more simply Trump can not obstruct the Flynn investigation because:
He can legitimately direct DOJ to halt investigating Flynn.
He can legitimately grant Flynn a full pardon at any time.
Ultimately Trump can pardon himself – there is already precident.
There are alot of legal things that Trump might be wise not to do – because he might be impeached for them. But lets not play stupid games and pretend that the are crimes.
Right now republican support for impeachment is 7% at that level you are unlikely to get a single republican representative or senator to vote for impeachment.
It might be possible for democrats to retake the house. I think that is far less likely than the left hopes.
The odds are still heavily against retaining the senate – though Moores loss slightly improves those odds.
The odds of getting 66 senators to vote for impeachment no matter what happens in 2018 are just about zero.
Trump has ordered the Tax Bill Witholding rates to take effect Jan. 1.
People will see the change in their witholding immeidately.
🤬 Put the bite on him, Rachael, sweetie.
“The case for obstruction of justice against this president continues to grow, and it may have just reached a point of no return.”
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/12/21/rachel-maddow-explains-airtight-obstruction-justice-case-building-trump.html
Nah, Trump’s word against a bunch of guys that wrote notes and talked to each other. Need more than that and this Rep. House would probably require an HD video certified by three angels to be accurate.
Keep digging Rachel.
Trump’s word against a bunch of guys who have kept notes that DAMN them.
Trump’s word against a bunch of memo’s that confirm nearly everything Trump has said.
Trump’s word against guy’s who have admitted under oath to violating the law and leaking classified information to the press, and of leaking confidential information.
While an impeachment trial does not follow the rules of criminal procedute – if it did, the judge would have to give the jury a crim-in-falsi instruction covering most of those “respectable” people purportedly testifying against Trump.
I would further suggest – that they are unlikely to testify. Their legal risk is too high.
President Scumbag Further Demeans American Tradition.
https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/944337102484865025
It’s a freaking commemorative, collectible coin, Jay. Each president can personalize it as he Iikes.
I bet Obama is jealous…
There is all kinds of novelty junk whitehouses have handed out over the years.
I also note how something done by Bush and Obama has become a revered american tradition that has been desecrated.
Just more “Argh! Trump!” garbage.
Well would you look at this.
http://www.armynavyshop.com/prods/ec-2366.html#.Wj3brlWnEps
Just terrible I say, Just terrible!!!
Can you believe this guy. He had two of these in three years and neither one had the correct seal on the back. What an ego he had.
Every president can have their own changes on their own coin. I would think the commemorative coin that was listed in the Army Navy link is one he approved or his estate approved for that purpose. Just think whats going to happen when Trump approves a second coin for sale for some other organization,or charitable effort.
Jay, you are negating anything with a potential to impact anyone’s thoughts about Trump with all this insignificant crap you are posting. Your worse than Chicken Little.These tweets and Facebook posts are just as bad as the “bots” you are having an anal hemorrhage over. They are propaganda that are partial truths at best or your comments are making them look as such. WaPo reported Trump’s coin had some of Trumps influence. BIG DEAL. Deal with it!
Ron;
You do not understand. If Trump does it, it is wrong.
First you find something Trump has done, then you say – look how stupid or disrepectful,
and then only if forced do you actually try to demonstrate that there is any truth in what you claim.
Attacking Trump has so much merit that even outright lies are acceptable.
For two decades – i.e. Bush and Obama.
Presidents have provided assorted momento’s practically forever, The Carter Whitehouse gave people peanuts, the Reagan white house jelly beans.
I do not care what Trump hands out.
Check out the Emperor Nero coins, Trump with little fat cheeks and pompadour make him look like a brother. https://www.etsy.com/listing/569682541/54-68-ad-ancient-imperial-rome-emperor?gpla=1&gao=1&utm_campaign=shopping_us_ForesthillNumismatic_sfc_osa&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_custom1=0&utm_content=10918515&gclid=Cj0KCQiA9_LRBRDZARIsAAcLXjcuUnV0OHmH9FjBo0rHkH98AIwADHz4IenPerT_8kV5yZAXwcTFtKIaAvX-EALw_wcB
The question, dduck, is: did Nero maintain the coin traditions of the 2 previous emperors? Or was his coin more flamboyant? Make Rome Great Again!
P, they all did it, but Nero is the most Trump looking. 🙂
A new standard for evaluating integrity, criminality, ….
To what extent do the person look like Trump !
https://twitter.com/truthtroll99/status/944445985089925121
I thought the tax bill was “unpopular” ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/19/poll-gop-tax-bill-304831
Only alittle of this is about Obama/Trump.
But all of it is about an Obama Whitehouse that had no interest in national security or the law, and ran the presidency as a purely political operation using the National intellugence community as a lackey.
I makes it very easy to beleive the allegations with respect to targeting Trump.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/21/barack-obama-used-classified-intelligence-leaks-po/
As we learn more and more about the Obama administration malfeasance,
The question becomes how is the worst of what the left accuses Trump of not less than this ?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454737/obama-iran-hezbollah-administration-ignored-terrorist-drug-trafficking
Libertarian xmas humor.
Of course regulation is good
https://fee.org/articles/5-laws-that-could-send-santa-to-federal-prison/
https://twitter.com/RandyEBarnett/status/944433995437236224
CREW Emoluments clause case goes down in flames – and this was thought to be the strongest one.
http://reason.com/volokh/2017/12/22/federal-court-dismisses-first-emoluments
If you expect people to beleive that the top Tier of the FBI/DOJ was not politically biased and politically active during the 2015, 2016 election, if would be helpful if ever single suggestion of questionable conduct involving a senior member of the FBI/DOJ was not either pro clinton or Anti-Trump.
BTW Sessions has apparently ordered an investigation into this.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/22/trump-dossier-fbi-james-baker-david-corn-mother-jones-316157
Jay one for you. From Town Hall.
“Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), one of the Senate’s most outspoken advocates for school choice, introduced an addition to the tax bill called the Student Opportunity Amendment. The amendment would expand 529 college savings plans to also include K-12 education, allowing parents and grandparents to use these tax-advantaged plans to save up to $10,000 per child per year for private schools, religious schools, or even homeschooling.
This represented a significant change in policy that would benefit more than 50 million children. The Senate voted in favor of the amendment, 50-50, with the Vice President breaking the tie.
However, Democrats weren’t about to let a beneficial piece of legislation pass without a fight. Party leaders ran to the Senate Parliamentarian to complain that the entire amendment ran afoul of the Byrd rule — another one of those arcane Senate rules that no one understands. But while the Parliamentarian disagreed with the Democrats’ argument about the majority of the provisions in the amendment, she unfortunately found their argument compelling when applied to homeschooling and struck the language from the bill.”
Senator Cruz then offered an amendment to suspend the parliamentarians ruling which would require 60 votes. Not one Democrat voted for that amendment, even though the cost for home schoolers was a minimal amount compared to the full cost of the legislation.
I think this is perfect example of Shumers rigid control of his minions and his desire to screw anything and anyone just to block anything the GOP proposes.
I would oppose Cruz’s proposal because the objective is to simplify things not make them more complex.
All a 529 is as a bizzare form of Tax Deduction.
I do not want to see ANYTHING tax deductible (or subsidized).
If I value something like home schooling – then I should pay for it.
Get government OUT of educational subsidies, and tax benefits.
End 529 programs.
Better would have been to Fully implement SALT. No deduction of any taxes at all. Not sales taxes, not state income taxes, Not school taxes.
So long as the state and local government take money from us to educate children addressing home schooling and other alternatives must be done at that level.
We should eliminiate school taxes and let people pay for whatever education they want.
That is unlikely to happen. But we can tie the money to the kids “backpack”,
Charters and cybercharters in many states are funded by the state, they frequently collect 75% of the per student tax money that municipality collects for that child – the balance remains with the traditional public school the child would have attended in return for that school providing special services like band, or sports – which almost never happen.
Extend that to Homeschool.
If you want to “federalize” that, make federal educational funding contingent on states allowing homeschooled children access to their public education tax dollars.
Andy Mc Carthy has a great column, explaining in detail why he now believes that the Steele dossier was used to get the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, and to continue that spying after the election.
(Remember Jay, you copied and pasted his tweet, saying that he didn’t think that Peter Strzok’s texts to his mistress were any big deal )
He lays out the whole timeline, as he believes it played out, and it’s pretty convincing. If I were Carter Page, I would, at the very least, be preparing a YUGE defamation lawsuit against a bunch of high ranking officials.
If McCarthy is right, I think it’s pretty obvious that the Mueller investigation is a smoke screen for certain members of the FBI and the DOJ who not only violated the constitution but likely committed treason, in the name of trying to keep Donald Trump from being elected.
I’m willing to accept that some, even most, of them thought that they were saving the country from a bad guy, but it wasn’t within their rights or powers to do this illegally. Police states grow from just this kind of belief that law enforcement can do anything that it wants, even if its methods are illegal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454909/trump-russia-collusion-fbi-investigation-steele-dossier-hillary-clinton-campaign
Priscilla, it is becoming more apparent each day that Mueller may not have anything on Trump that could lead to any charge, but that is yet to be determined. He might have something up his sleeve yet, but the longer it goes the less likely it is to happen.
but Sessions opening up the Uranium deal investigation might be his “Mueller Way” to get to something on Clinton, Obama, and others through the back door to find illegal activities during the campaign by them.
What I find interesting now is Trump made all these promises during the election on what he was going to do and he has done just about all of them. And now his popularity is less than what it was during the campaign, but not by much. What does it say for the voters when someone say I will do X, they do X and then the voters say “Oh crap, he did X!” Its like “Your suppose to tell us a bunch of lies,do something different or don’t do anything at all”. That’s what we have had for years and now we have someone who said what he meant, did what he said he would do and people are having a cow.
The entire problem with the building revelations of the conduct of the FBI, DOJ, NSA, CIA, …. during the Obama administration is thet the ends do not justify the means.
We start by seeking the Truth. Not determining how to reach a specifc outcome.
What is self evidently wrong – whether it is Jay or Roby or Strzok or …..
Is that the starting point was/is Trump is a criminal and the goal is to go after him until you can find and prove something.
The investigation is collapsing because no proof has been found.
But slowing it is dawning on many – possibly only because proof is not being found,
that the real error was in presuming that there was some unspecified crime in the first place.
We do not investigate people because we “beleive” they are criminals.
The fundimental principle in the 4th amendment is that we must have more than a gut feeling, before we can marshal the power of government to dig into someone’s life.
Mueller’s objective is supposed to be to find the truth – not to “get Trump”, not to find something up his sleeve.
With respect to the other matters that are arising.
While there is some evidence of serious criminal misconduct,
What I want is the broadest possible investigations into what the hell went wrong in the Obama administration, with the objective of making sure that nothing like that can occur ever again.
With the additional objective of cleaning house at the DOJ/FBI/NSA/CIA
While some particularly egregious actions might warrant otherwise. I do not care about criminal prosecutions. I do care about exposing all of this to sunlight,
The left does nto seem to grasp that what we already know is WORSE THAN WATERGATE.
We are not talking about bumbling idiots action outside the sanction of the institutions of government. We are talking about the very institutions of government being used to accomplish a political agenda. Those inside of any administration have the right to hold whatever political views they please. But they may not act in anyway using the power and authority of their position in government to advance those views.
Putin may actually legitimatly try to influence US elections by posting through social media.
No FBI agent or DOJ lawyer may use their power and position to “influence” US elections.
If Strzok wanted to “Get Trump” he was free to do the same as Putin on social media.
Dave, yes, what is happening now is worse than Watergate. When the news comes out that we cozied up to Hezbollah to get the Iranian deal done, that is worse than providing arms to the cartels. In neither case anything will taken.
Its time for our justice department to get off their asses and investigate actual government crimes and prosecute those responsible!
And if these deals were not illegal, then its time for Congress to do its join and make it illegal.
I do not want to make these things “illegal”
I want them to not be inside of the powers of government.
Our first president told us that our government should stay out of this nonsense.
Our government should stay out of our economy, and the economies of other nations,
Are am scared of the prospect of a nuclear Iran and terrified at the prospect of a nuclear North Korea.
I will fully support – and pay taxes to develop effective means of neutralizing Iran An North Koreas ability to use Nuclear weapons.
But we have no business as a government deciding what NK or Iran can buy or sell.
I would strongly support companies chosing not to exchange with NK or IRan for any of a number of reasons. I would fully support boycotts of companies who do.
I do not support laws that constrain our freedom – even the freedom to do things that MIGHT be dangerous. You are not free to actually harm others.
You do not become responsible for “potential harm” until it becomes “actual harm”
Dave, “Our first president told us that our government should stay out of this nonsense.”
Looks like you are quoting Washington and he called doing stupid things “nonsense” and you support that. I keep saying doing stupid things is “not using common sense” and you do not agree there is anything like common sense.
However, since our politicians have put themselves first, then their party and then the country in the order of priority, they have put the country in the “nonsense” that Washington said it should stay out of. So since they have done that, what do you propose to keep them out of it if you do not agree with my position that it should be illegal and people should pay the price if they do the “nonsensical” thing?
Your position assumes it never happens. My position assumes it will and someone should pay the price. Which one actually happens?
Ron;
You are arguing generally – and to some extent we agree generally.
But when it comes down to specific’s – washington WAS specific.
He said our government should stay out of foreign intrigue.
Little or no treaties, trade deals, aliances,
We should engage in exchange freely with all and favor to none.
That our trade was the business of our trader’s not our government.
more than 150 years later Eisenhower said much the same thing.
My position on common sense is that it is a nebulous to the point of meaningless concept and that when people claim they are driven by “common sense” they have usually mad e bad choices.
There is absolutely zero positive correlation between however you define “common sense” and net positive outcomes.
I am not interested in semantica games – in arguments that rest on the emotional appeal of phrases like “common sense”.
If you think “common sense” is a principle demonstrate that it meets Kant’s catagorical imprerative, and that a clear and understandable defintion has a track record of success
Dave, I could give you 10 examples of what I consider using common sense and base on your political views, you could give me 10 or more reasons why it was not . Then you could give me 10 examples of nonsense (as described by Washington) and I could probably give you reasons why it would be “common sense” based on my political views. And we could both agree on 10 things together and dduck and Jay would have reasons why it was nonsensical rubbish based on their political views.
My “common sense” is based on my moderate libertarian views of what I think government should be and do. It is about 150 degrees different than your more pure libertarian views and the full 180 from dducks and Jays more progressive positions.
Ron
Your argument makes my point – and another.
The perception that ‘common sense” can guide us – is near universal.
But the shared meaning of “common sense” is not.
“common sense” as a guiding principle is a chimera that semantically attempts to gloss over our very real differences.
The most critical distinction between my views and those of nearly everyone else here,
if that I do not hide from out differences or pretend that a transient political victory allows us to act as if those differences do not exist.
We may not use force – aka government to advance values that are not near universally shared.
That is the fundimental difference between a value and a principle.
..
Dave, I could give you 10 examples of what I consider using common sense and base on your political views, you could give me 10 or more reasons why it was not . Then you could give me 10 examples of nonsense (as described by Washington) and I could probably give you reasons why it would be “common sense” based on my political views. And we could both agree on 10 things together and dduck and Jay would have reasons why it was nonsensical rubbish based on their political views.
My “common sense” is based on my moderate libertarian views of what I think government should be and do. It is about 150 degrees different than your more pure libertarian views and the full 180 from dducks and Jays more progressive positions.
I am unclear about what the “it” is that you think we are in disagreement about.
I also think you and I may be using “illegal” differently.
I want severely limited government.
That is less laws, and more bright line ones.
Dave “I am unclear about what the “it” is that you think we are in disagreement about”
It in this definition is what we should do to politicians today, You continue to argue that we should stay out of a multitude of different things, and many of those I agree with. I keep saying that there should be some recourse when politicians involve the country in some of these issues and when I say there should be some legal means of charging these individuals with some illegal activity. When I make that comment, you come back with the position that we should not be involved in that activity at all and you want the country out of that .
So we go around in circles and then I asked how we handle the current politicians that I believe are entering into illegal activities or activities that should be illegal and then you asked what “it” is.
So here is one more try and you tell me how you think we should handle situations where we do find politicians involved in “it”
. I accept the fact that we should not be involved with certain activities, such as the ones you comment on.
I also know that we have politicians that get us into activities that I do not believe we should be involved in. (We are involved in “it”)
So here is two “its” I think should be illegal. According to news reports “Barack Obama’s administration has been accused of undermining an investigation into the terrorist group Hezbollah in order to secure its nuclear deal with Iran. The former US president’s team was said to have put “roadblocks” in place to slow the investigation amid fears it would undermine negotiations …” It is also reported that many in the intelligence services where very upset that their drug enforcement work involving drug smuggling and other drug involvement work had been undermined when the administration supported Hezbollah to get the Iranian deal completed…… Another one ” In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan’s administration supplied weapons to Iran (a sworn enemy) in hopes of securing the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s leader.
The “it” is dealing with an enemy secretly, without congressional involvement. The president and his cabinet members are not kings, but they operate in that way at certain times and there should be swift and substantial ramifications during or after their terms expire so presidents will not be tempted to do those things again.
As best as I can tell you think our difference has to do with punishing vs. prohibiting.
I think every single congressmen acts to empower government to exceed its constitutional bounds.
The only punishment that exists for that is political. Viscerally I would like more.
Both Madison and myself want more, but I know of no other means and Madison never found another means beyond structuring govenrment to pit ambition against ambition.
Beyond that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
Nothing so precious is valued so little by so many.
I have repeatedly decried Roby and others here as immoral for their willingness to use force directly or through proxy to achieve their will.
I am not prepared to criminalize that form of immorality. That makes me barely better than they.
I want a deep thorough investigation of what occurred int he prior administration.
But my objective is to figure out what changes are necessary to government to preclude that from occuring again.
I do not want to replace Obama and Clinton sycophant’s with Trump ones.
Trump made cleaning house a major campaign promise.
We elected a President famous for “You’re Fired!”
The punishment for failing to do your job is to lose your job.
I want the broadest possible probe.
I want to restrict Criminal consequences to clear and well understood actual crimes.
The more we make this about punishment, the more visciously any effort to probe this will be resisted.
I want to bring as much sunlight into government as possible.
One of the things some journalists – such as Glenn Greenwald noted during the Obama administration is that after promising to be the most Transparent ever it proved to be the least.
Obama more aggressively prosecuted leakers than not merely any, but all prior presidents combined. That did not mean the Obama administration did not leak. But that what leaked was only what was intended to leak.
The Trump administration has leaked like a sieve since day one – primarily because the Trump administration is a tiny portion of actual Trump appointees, presiding over a federal bureacrcy that is unchanged from 2016.
With very few exceptions I do not care about the leaks. I do think those few that leak actual classified information should be aggressively prosecuted.
But our government is far far far too secretive – whether that of Trump or Obama.
I am hopeful that Trump’s need to pry the sercrets of the Obama administration into public will result in less ability for him to keep secrets of his own.
I read an editorial recently by a former Intelligence officer now actively working towards declassifying information from the past.
He noted that less than 1/20 of what is produced as classified today – should be even according to current law – and that has been the norm since atleast WWII.
That most of what actually should be classified need not remain classified very long,
Sometimes a few years, sometimes only a few days.
That despite this it is still nearly impossible to pry free documents that were classified in the 60’s.
That this excessive government secrecy impeeds not merely the public, and historians, but the actual work of those currently in government.
Barring the public release of decades of government records deprives us of the benefits of historical analysis of those records. It deprives us of the means to learn lessons from our past mistakes and successes.
Anyway the point is I want as much of govenrment – whether Trump or Obama out in the open.
As just one example, take the Mueller investigation.
It is secret. We do not know what Mueller has or what he is up to.
We can only guess.
But lets do so:
If Mueller has actual credible evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia,
something with significantly more substance than the garbage that has been revealed thus far – then he should proceed. I think that odds of that are zero, but that is the desparate hope of the left.
If all that Mueller has left is more of this garbage about failing to properly kow tow to government investigators, about not stating the same thing in the same way on government forms, to congress or two FBI agents, then Mueller should stand down immediately.
It may be necescary to expose inconsistancies – even lies, but absent an actual underlying crime, it should not ever be criminal. Flynn was fired – that was the ONLY appropriate consequence. If congress wishes to pry more deeply into inconsistencies – fine.
If the press does – fine. But the punishement is the damage to your integrity.
If we jail people for lying the entire Obama administration should be in Leavenworth.
If Mueller is investigating Trump’s activities unrelated to campaign coordination with Russia – that should be terminated. We do not use government to investigate people merely because we want to know. That is the job of the press. If our Media or others come forward with a credibly basis beyond the certainty of the left that one can not be in business without being deeply corrupt, then government can investigate. But not before.
The justification for investigations into the Clinton foundation were/are two fold.
First Clinton was Secretary of state at the time, and government absolutely can investigate government and government officials for corruption related to their actions as government officials. Second the media provided enough of a credible basis to further investigate.
The incredible disparity between the investigations of Trump and those of Clinton and the Obama administration are beyond belief.
In the former we are investigating a private person for private actions, because those on the left hope to find proof of misconduct. We still today have no evidence beyond we do not like the outcome, and the left is unable to beleive it came about naturally.
In the later we have tons of evidence of actual misconduct by people in their official roles as agents of the US government.
A special counsel is investigating the former. We are doing next to nothing about the latter.
I keep pointing out that the left does not grasp the danger it is in.
All the polls, the entire mood of the public could turn radically on a dime.
We have those on the left predicting a republican blood bath in November.
That REQUIRES:
The Mueller investigation to continue for 11 more months.
During which it must regularly produce both sufficient to justify its own existance and to sustain the faint hope of getting Trump.
I would note that public views of Clinton improved while the Starr investigation proceeded, despite Starr actually making substanitive progress that Mueller has been unable to do.
It requires the economy to tank rather than improve.
The economy has been strenghtening since January.
Whatever the long term impacts the short term impacts of tax reform are likely to be a substantial economic boost.
While I think they could have done far better. What was done appears to be a significant improvement – less that it should have been, but still improvement.
Nearly all individuals are going to see cuts in their income taxes.
Investment means jobs, and rising incomes.
My question to those on the left is how do you plan on maintaining the status quo ?
If you do not come up with serious blood and soon, you will lose popular support for your vendetta.
As this has proceeded it has been more damaging to the left than to Trump.
The list of misconduct of the Obama administration grows and grows.
The upper echelon of DOJ and FBI have been exposed as int he tank for Clinton and maliciously anti-trump and acting on it.
As the economy continues to brighten support will wither.
You are fighting gravity.
I will give you a freebie. We are overdue for a recession – one has not occured and what signs there are are diminishing – though we are abysmal at seeing the signs until afterwards,
and we have many many messes left from the past decade that pose an economic threat.
We have done nothing to actually fix the causes of the housing bubble.
We have government driven credit bubbles in several other areas
Regardless – a recession before the 2018 or 2020 election will be absolutely disasterous for Republicans.
But that is like the beanstalk thinking of the Mueller investigation.
And do you really want to be praying for disaster in order to return to power ?
Dave “And do you really want to be praying for disaster in order to return to power ?”
Yes, and Shumer and Pelosi will do everything in their power that they can that can not be tied to them to make that happen.
“We have those on the left predicting a republican blood bath in November.
That REQUIRES:”
The one critical piece you left out and the piece causing Trumps low favorable rates today. His stupidity to continue to make moronic comments during periods of positive news. Something good happens, there is little other news that can be covered, positive coverage begins and he will immediately make some stupid, unrelated comment that the MSM will cover for days. The positive news is long forgotten!
“Yes, and (FILL IN WITH EVEN MORE REPUBLICAN NAMES) will do everything in their power that they can that can not be tied to them to make that happen.
Again we are in near absolute agreement.
I think the coattails of presidents have been greatly exaggerated.
2008 was a wave running against republicans – because the financial crisis and housing bubble occured during their watch. While I think that democrats escaped their “fair” share of the blame, that is still politics.
Obama’s coattails did not bring democrats to power. The subsequence disasterous decade for democrats was not because of the strength or weakness of Obama’s coattails, but the weakness of the democratic party and message as a whole.
Trump might have mildly hurt republican’s in 2016, regardless he had no coattails. Trump did well in places republicans did poorly, Republicans did well in places Trump did poorly.
Subsequently democrats nationally have tried to make each special election a referendum on Trump. They have failed. Republicans delivering republican messages to republicans constituencies have won. Those few republican losses have been directly attributable to the specifics of the race and the candidates and local conditions.
Doug Jones as an example has made it a point to assert that he can work with Trump.
I do not expect that to be true – but it was a necescary promise to get elected.
Northam ran away from the democratic left and won.
I think that 2018 will see the freedom caucus gain more ground in red states and districts.
Republican moderates will win pink states and districts.
the democratic left will grow in blue states and districts, and contests in purple states and districts will be about the people of those states and districts, and the specific candidates running.
If democrats or republicans try to make the election about Trump – they will lose.
But democrats will face headwinds, with a growing economy, and almost 2 years of hearing the same anti-Trump screed without producing substance.
Republicans will run away from Trump personally, but they will embrace strongly his policies – because they have succeeded.
“The one critical piece you left out and the piece causing Trumps low favorable rates today. His stupidity to continue to make moronic comments during periods of positive news. ”
That occured prior to the election and Trump still won the election – despite low favorables.
Further, as much as I do not like Trump’s remark’s he “wins” most of these exchanges.
He appears no less “stupid” than those who target him. He drives his own favorables down by 1 pt and those of his opponents down by two. As badly as Trump is viewed all else are viewed worse.
I do not know whether Trump’s favorables will rise with a rising economy and the death or failure of this witch hunt. But no one else will be helped more.
Nor am I disturbed by the very high unfavorability of government overall that Trump is driving.
I did not need Trump’s inane remarks to mistrust government.
I help it in low esteem without Trump.
Today, most everyone left or right holds it in the same low esteem that I do.
And more and more are understanding their poor view of government is not caused by Trump, :”good government” is a unicorn. If prior government was viewed well, that was only because we did not know enough.
Further, many of Trump’s attack are less harmful that suggested. Trump attack’s those who pretend to be better than all the rest of us. most of his supporters and many of those who are not are secretly pleased when his attacks hit bone.
Regardless, from where we are:
The favorability of the press can rise – if they work on their own integrity. If they report to reporting the news not creating it or shaping it. I do not expect that, but it is in their power. Further I can live with a subjective and politicized press. We have thrived with that in the past. A multitude of different viewpoints with open biases is superior to very limited sources with real but heavily masked biases.
Today’s free press is the free market in action – it is not necessarily pretty, it is not what we want.
It is not the theoretical best, but it is the best that is possible.
Trump and Republican’s favorability can rise – if the economy remains strong – there are precursors that growth int eh 4th quarter of 2017 will exceed 4%, and revised projections that the first 3Q of 2018 will be near 4%.
Meuller is fizzling. absent something new, significant and unforseen the effect of the Trump/Russia narrative in the coming months will be to Trump and Republican’s benefit and the harm of democrats.
If you strike the king, you must kill the king. If you accuse someone else of criminal conduct, you must prove your allegations or it is your reputation that suffers.
Democrats have created Trump/Russia as a millstone around their own necks. Worse still the consequences of the house, senate and even some of the press investigations has been to uncover a large and rapidly growing body of misconduct during the Obama administration.
While Trump/Russia may fade, this can only grow over the coming months.
Democrats have demanded investigations into the past. Democrats have sought to criminalize the political. They can not stand up under scrutiny by their own standards.
Democrats still have no message. They last in 2016 by attacking a large portion of the electorate standing for little or nothing. The only message they have is “we are not Trump”, “We are not republicans” – that was not enough in 2016, nothing has changed. In a time of recovery they wish to go back.
Before voting in 2018, voters will likely look back on the preceding 7 quarters and divy up credit and blame. Republicans have real accomplishments to run on. Democrats will be trying to explain why the economy has been able to grow faster since Trump was elected than any 2 year period during the Obama administration.
Unemployment continues to decline – the left is correct that trend started long before Trump, but it is stronger now, further labor force participation is rising – people permanently out of the economy are coming back in. wages are rising, and the pressure on wages is rising. All growth above that necessary to accommodate demographic changes, must raise employment or wages.
With the passage of the Tax bill myriads of companies have announced they are giving back any tax windfalls in the form of increased research, increased investment, bonuses to employees, increased wages. That consequence should have been self evident to left wing nuts. What is it you think that gigantic corporations do with profits ? Bury them in a hole in the ground ?
The beneficiaries of reduced taxes of any kind must always be human beings.
This is the growing headwind democrats will face in 2018. Their own hostility to republicans and to Trump makes it impossible for them to share credit.
I would further note that the benefits of PPACA and other democratic policies during the Obama administration fell near exclusively on democrats in blue states and urban regions. The harms fell near exclusively on republicans in red states and suburban and rural areas.
The near exact reverse is true with Trump. Trump is pissing off people, he is harming people.
But only those who never will vote for him anyway.
That ” yes” was how the congressional democrat leaders would answer your disaster question, not me!
Absolutely positively we should investigate all of this.
Just as we investigated Benghazi.
Absolutely the Republicans sought to make political hay out of Benghazi.
But that is tangential. There was a really bad thing that happened and it was legitimate to determine why that happened who was responsible and what could be done to prevent that in the future.
Maybe the answer was little or nothing.
But not likely.
We make mistakes. We can not learn from our mistakes until we face them.
While Benghazi had the potential to lead to prosecutions – and for some maybe that was the goal.
The most important goal was to learn and reduce the likelyhood of future failure.
The second was to hold those responsible pollitically accountable.
To fire them or otherwise alter their reputation to reflect their bad judgement.
One of the most serious problems we have with government is that it is nearly impossible to lose your job for misconduct or failure. When there is no price to failure, there is lots of failure and no learning.
“What I find interesting now is Trump made all these promises during the election on what he was going to do and he has done just about all of them. And now his popularity is less than what it was during the campaign, but not by much. ”
The reasons are obvious. I’m suprised they haven’t registered in your thinking..
First, he’s done a few things, but not many others he promised.
Where’s the Wall and Mexico paying for it?
Where are the jobs for steelworkers? Nowhere, they’re going down, not up.
Where’s the tax on electric autos made in Mexico? Not a peep from him in Office.
Same for ALL the Carrier jobs he promised to protect – a snowjob publicity stunt, and all the snow has melted.
And where is the replacement of Obamacare? He promised to replace it with something better. Obamacare is still in operation, and enrollment is expanding. And health insurance rates are RISING. WHERES THE FIX?
Where’s all that improvement to the infrastructure he promised?
Where the fuck are the taxes he promised to release?
On the campaign trail, he said he wouldn’t take time off if elected president like Obama did, and he would “rarely leave the White House.” That was utter bullshit – he’s frittered away multi millions of taxpayer money playing golf and visiting his properties, and of course TWEETING divisive crap day in and day out.
There’s more broken promises of course, webs of lies he’s spun without following through: but let me get into the crux of your confusion:
HUGE NUMBERS of Americans were not in favor of those changes he promised to make.
By what illogic do you conclude UNWANTED changes pushed through will make him or Republicans popular with those who don’t want them?
And it doesn’t matter if any legislation he backs is good or not, because A LARGE MAJORITY of Americans don’t trust him. After the election he had a chance to salvage that trust, but the moron immediately blew it with ridiculous lies about his innaugeration crowds. You may think that was insignificient, but it cemented his doom to multitudes of Americans as an idiotic untrustworthy Dickhead: If he so openly was lying about that, he couldn’t be trusted for the important business of government.
He’s a half blind bull in the china shop – no matter what paths he clears, the attendant breakage won’t be worth it. America will pay the price down the road in multiple collateral damage to our institutions, our reputation among traditional allies, and a festering divisiveness at home he’s insured will be long lasting.
You are under the delusion we live in a democracy.
If polls matter in the way you claim – why wasn’t Clinton forced to resign ?
The day after admitting he had sex with lewinsky 80% of the country thought he must resign.
How is it that PPACA even exists ? It has never had majority support and rarely plurality support and even those plumet radically if people beleive that they will have to pay anything extra for it.
The consent of the governed is necescary to government – as was amply demonstrated with the fall of the USSR. But the consent of the governed is NOT a popularity contest, or even an unpopularity contest.
Regardless, as you keep ignoring democrats are 10pts LESS popular than Trump.
With respect to campaign promises – are you daft ?
Trump’s promises are to his voters – not you or I.
Whether you think he lied or not is meaningless.
It is whether they do.
Trump voters have faced open hostility from those like you for more than a decade.
They do not care what you think.
They have watched as you, democrats and the left have not merely obstructed Trump legitmately, but also done so by atemping a soft coup.
Do you understand that there are many who might beleive that the unicorn of Russian Collusion got Trump elected – and DO NOT CARE, because that does nto even balance the active efforts of the federal government to interfere in the election.
So let me try to make this clearer:
Russia can try to influence the US elections. There is nothing we can do to stop that – unless you are prepared to go to war with the 2nd largest nuclear power in the world.
Further so long as they are doing so through persuasion there is nothing we should try to do about it.
But the FBI/DOJ NSA, CIA May NOT influence an american election. That is the worst possible political corruption, that is criminal, and that is something we can do something about.
Russian collusion remains a unicorn. While federal government collustion to thwart Trump’s election is as established as the DNC’s efforts to block Sanders – except that the DNC’s actions were wrong but legal while those of the federal government were criminal.
Regardless, actual Trump voters do not care about what you think they should care about.
With regard to those promises he has not kept – they blame you and people like you – not Trump.
While PPACA is not imploding as fast as predicted – it is not expanding.
Enrollments are BELOW last year, just not as much as predicted.
I do not share the views of those who voted for Trump.
But I am not so stupid as to believe as you do that I can predict their response to Trump based on my own.
Polls are also indicating that Trump has stronger support among actual voters than the rest of the country and has lost little support among those who actually voted for him.
Further as is constantly noted – even here, the country is deeply split.
Those on the right do not blame Trump for the split or for his falilures – they blame the left.
Republican congressmen have avoided townhalls while working on the Tax Bill.
Either they are incredibly stupid, or incredibly wise.
Either they correctly grasp that the polls and carpetbaggers showing up at their townhalls do not reflect the views of their constituents,.
Or the are wrong and in deep shit.
Maybe you are right and they are wrong.
But if you are wrong – democrats may be in very deep trouble in 2018.
Frankly, I think they are.
Doug Jones actively campaigned and continues to note that he can and will work with Trump.
That may or may not be true, but it is certain he had to say that to get elected.
When republicans were running from 2009-2016 thy HAD to promise to repeal Obamacare.
Maybe the republican base will hold them accountable for that – but not likely by voting for democrats.
Ron is jumping up and down over deficits, and to a very large extent I share his views and would cut far deeper than he. But is his anger at Republicans over debt and deficits going to drive him to vote for Pelosi Schumer, Warren ?
The questions with respect to almost half of those who disapprove of Trump are:
Is their distaste for Trump so high they would vote for a democrat ?
Ir will they chose not to vote at all.
Both of those are always greater problems for the left than th right.
We have had some special elections, we have a few more coming.
Thus far there is no clear evidence of anything.
There could be a Trump backlash – but so far it is not evident.
There could be an backlash against Democrats – also thus far not showing.
The polls show a very high displeasure with everyone. That does not predictably favor any.
Normally that works against the party in power – because they are in power.
But who is perceived to be in power right now ?
Is Trump failing to deliver on promises because he changed his mind ?
Or because he can not get the necescary votes ?
Inside the executive he is keeping most of his pormises to the extent he has the legimate authority to do so.
I do not know what voters will do – but neither do you.
The best clue we have is Northam Billespie That tells us that a moderate democrat running away from his party can beat a moderate republican running away from his.
Jay, he is not a dictator. We have two chambers of congress that can not scratch their ass and blow their nose at the same time. They could not even do healthcare reform and tax reform at the same time. So lets see what gets done in the next 2 years.
Remember, the president can not do much by himself, but what Trump has done has had a lasting impact on the future of the country. Just the fact that regulations will need to be justified as to the cost benefit will do a lot. Executive Order 13771. Now the next president can issue an EO and say spend whatever you want which could make them the most popular president ever. Who knows.
I do not know what was actually done.
But what is increasingly self evident is that DOJ and FBI were politically corrupt
Every time we terun arround there is another revelation of misconduct.
It does nto all always lead to Trump or the Steele Dossier. It does nto all always lead to Clinton.
But every time we turn arround it leads somewhere bad.
The latest is revelations regarding Baker. It is being claimed that he “leaked” the Steele Dossier to the Press. Mother Jones is denying that. That may or may not be true.
But what we know know is that Baker was involved with the Steele Dossier, and that he was in contact with the author of the Steele Dossier article at Mother Jones.
At the barest minimum it is likely he is the government source that confirmed its autheticity.
Though honestly it does not matter. There are limited legitimate reasons for an FBI Senior council to be talking to a Mother Jones reporter. No one has offered a valid one.
Baker was reassigned and has apparently resigned/retired.
I do not know exactly how serious the Baker matter is. It is quite easy to add this to the rest of the FBI/DOJ misconduct and beleive there was an organized conspiracy – particularly when Strzok is texting about an organized conspiracy.
But all inappropriate conduct is not part of a conspiracy. Nor does minor inappropriate conduct automatically become larger inappropriate misconduct, just because every time we dig deeper this gets bigger and bigger.
The MSM is not reporting it but there are really bad Obama Administration stories running regarding Hezbolla and Iran. At the least the Obama Whitehouse compromised national security repeatedly over concerns about how some action would be reported in the press.
To be clear – it is legal for the president to interfere in the prosecution of criminal matters, the war on terror, or the prosecution of national security. There are some on the right now trying to claim obstruction of Justice by Obama for leaking information that allowed top ten terrorists to escape.
Just as Trump can fire Mueller, Sessions, Comey, Rosenstein, or anyone else in DOJ/FBI,
Just as he can direct them what or who to investigate or not,
Obama and Trump have the same power and authority.
Trump can be impeached for conducting the executive in an undesireable way, as could Obama.
But there can be no obstruction of justice in excersizing the powers vested in the presidency in an undesireable way.
That DOES NOT mean that subordinates can not obstruct justice for making the exact same decisions – if they are doing so unilaterally as opposed to directed from above.
The most dangerous people are those in government who believe they are doing something for the good of the nation will violating the law.
While today that is more common on the left than the right. That is the root of much evil done by government – whether of the left of the right.
@ Ron 12/4/9:13pm: FYI, I am a registered Rep, and I’m an anti progressive.
I agree with many of the idealistic/realistic points of both Libertarians and Conservatives like smaller more efficient government that does no interfere too much, and am for more sensible rules on environmental issues. That being said, the greedy hogs in business, mostly Reps and politics don’t give a flying F—- for the average Joe, IMHO. They are all acolytes of Leona Helmsley and others, and many like Trump, because he is only out for himself and others like him.
And, nope, I only agree with Jay, because he dislikes Trump and his gang, and I also hold many views common to Dems such as gun control and am pro choice, but not cradle to grave socialisim.
All that, and I would still like to see Reps go back to being thinking caring humans.
I do not know whether the Trump’s and Bezo’s and Soro’s and Koch’s and Steyer’s and Gate’s and … are hogs or whether they have some consideration for the rest of us.
I do know that the ambition and success of almost any of us, benefits almost all of us regardless of motives.
The Helmsley case is iluminating, Helmsley engaged in tax evasion. She did so stupidly, for someone with her wealth trying to deduct the costs of pools from her taxes saved very little and cost her her freedom. But ordinarily Helmsley’s conduct would have resulted in paying back taxes and fines.
Helmsley went to jail because of her disregard for ordinary people.
The very people who ultimately were her jury.
You are offended because those who succeed do not regard you highly enough.
While I am bothered by Helmsley’s disregard for the little people that cost her, her freedom,
that is not actually a crime.
You are not entitled to the regard of others – not the rich, not anyone.
You are entitled to be secure in your natural rights – that is all.
Everything else is up to you.
The fact that others – whether you see them as deserving or not succeed better than you do is irrelevant. Life is not fair. It can not be made fair, you would not want it fair if you were sane.
Republicans, the wealthy, those who succeed more than you did not make life unfair
They do not owe you anything because they have succeeded.
They do not owe you because you do not understand their success.
They do not owe you because I do not understand their success.
They do not owe you even if their success is for reasons other than merit.
They do not owe you their respect or regard.
Just as you owe them nothing – except to be secure – as you are in their natural rights.
Collectivism of all kinds has failed in all forms anywhere it has been tried.
It fails more disasterously and more bloodily the more seriously it is tried,
But less that “craddle to grave” socialism is merely less bad, not good.
The best empirical evidence on gun control is that it changes nothing – beyond how we committ suicide or kill others.
I see absolutely zero reason to regulate something when there is no benefit.
This is another example where “common sense” is nonsense.
I might agree that it seems “common sense” to regulate guns.
But the shallow analysis the first order thinking that constitutes “common sense”, usually fails.
It might be common, but it is not sense.
It’s GOOD BUSINESS to donate to political parties
NOTE: Apple promised not to release the Pee Pee tapes, and safely cut back on donation.
So you blame the victims of criminal politicians extorting money from businesses in order to allow them to keep what is theirs ?
Jay if you would read and pay attention to what others post on this site and not just willy nilly repost others tweets, you would already know politicians are bought and paid for. I have been saying this for almost the whole time I have been here.
Jay, by the way, if you would do some research you would find out that this cut for Apple and most of these other companies is associated with overseas cash. Apples liability on the cash they have over seas drops from around $78 billion to somewhere around $29 billion. So that is cash they have earned on overseas sales and have already paid tax on that cash in the countries that the sales occurred. This also assumes that Apple will repatriate all of the $252 billion they have setting in foreign countries and pay about 15% in tax coming to America.
So, tell me why it is better for America to leave $252 billion overseas and get nothing than it is to bring it into this country from countries like China where it was earned and pay 15%? My position is if it is earned in a foreign country and bring it here for investment or returns to retirement funds, then bring it back at no tax! We aren’t getting a dime now and we are not getting any benefit either.
http://fortune.com/2017/12/06/tax-reform-apple/
For your educational benefit, the money that is being listed by this dim wit that posted your tweet is cash that would stay overseas if the reform had not occurred. Having 252 billion and leaving it overseas and not paying any USA tax is NOT A CUT even under our idiotic thinking that an increase is a cut when reducing an increase. Allowing billions to come back into the country at a much reduced rate increases government revenues.
You have to be dumber than do-do to think that wouldn’t be diasterous…
Once a Smuck, always a Smuck
This nation was born from a middle class tax revolt.
From Wikipedia we managed without them for more of our history than we have had them.
We fought the Civil war without them. We expanded the country for ocean to ocean.
We absorbed 1/2 the country as new immigrants, we experienced the most rapid rise of standard of living in our history.
And BTW both the modern and historical economic record demonstrates that it was because of low taxes and spending that things improved that rapidly.
The Federal government currently spends about $4T/year – about 1/4 of everything produced – what do you get from the federal government worth 1/4 of everything you produce ?
If you are looking for Smuck – check the mirror
If you are concerned about possible bad effects of the tax cuts, you are free to contribute as much additional to the IRS are you want.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/fs_gifts_to_govt.htm
This should make it absolutely critically clear why corporate taxes are an abysmally bad idea.
If a corporation profits – it MUST do something with those profits.
There are many things it can do,
But NONE are not good for everyone.
A corporation can re-invest profits,
it can distribute them as pay or benefits to employees.
It can pay them as dividends to shareholders – and then those dividends will be taxed as income.
The entire idea of business taxation is incredibly stupid bunkum.
The real purpose of business taxation is to fund the government will hiding from people that they are the ones actually paying the taxes in some way – not the business.
http://www.nationalreview.com/morning-jolt/454855/tax-bill-armageddon-update?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=5a3eeeb504d301020948a2ba&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
If this is true, are you still proud to have this guy as president of our nation?
Are you descended from Irish,Italian, Jewish, Asian, African ancestors who willinginly came here, and suffered similar taunts and insults? But your family NEVER heard a President of the US speak about them like this!. Shame on America! Shame on ANYONE who doesn’t speak out against this scumbag for his scuzzy attitudes.
I am capable of being proud of many things Trump does and disturbed by others.
My views on immigration have been expressed repeatedly.
But my disagreement with Trump on immigration does not require me to do the even more stupid things that the left wishes.
Discounting the attacks of those who fail to grasp that unrestricted immigration can not coexist with unrestricted entitlements is rational.
I don’t believe this for a second. Everyone who was willing to go on the record, and who attended that meeting, says that they never heard anything of the sort.
There are no indications that Trump holds any racial animus towards any particular group, but there is plenty of evidence that the NYT is willing to publish anonymously sourced gossip, provide that the gossip reflects negatively on the president.
It’s just more of the same thing that’s been going on all year.
Who went on the record?
Name names. Besides Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary – now there’s a paragon of truthfulness – who named names that haven’t as far as I can tell confirmed they said anything.
Has Tillerson, one of the named names, rebuked the story, any of it, including the description of Schlump berating him and others like the jackass he is at the meeting.
You have it backwards.
Provide a named source that confirms your story ?
Even Comey stated under oath that nearly everything he read in NYT about Trump Russia Collusion was garbage.
Why are we supposed to believe anonymous triple or double hearsay without corroboration.
While I do expect – and even hope for some volatilitity in PRIVATE in the White House.
I hope and beleive that Trump has actually put together a cabinet of strong willed and highly competent advisors, and that means that there will be tensions and conflict – and that is good.
I hope and expect that everyone Trump included feel free to speak whatever comes to their head in private including things none of us would ever want to hear said publicly.
While I do not believe the story, I am more concerned about the leak.
Whether True or false the result of the story will be greater caution in expression in meetings with the president and more justifiable suspicion by Trump of advisors.
I want Trump’s advisors to be willing to go toe-to-toe with him, and I want him able to push back.
We know as an example that the decision regarding Afghanistan was contentious.
That Bannon and Trump and the America Firster’s wanted the US military out of afghanistan. We know that McMaster’s and Kelley and Mattis wanted expanded military operations in afghanistan.
In this instance the wrong choice was made.
Regardless, the process was what we actually want. We want the best advocates for each position to push their views with their best efforts.
And we do not want political repercussions for either the winners or the losers.
The country is best served not by group hugs, safe spaces, compromise and consensus but by having each idea vigorously argued by its best advocate before making a decision.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that one of the huge problems with the obama administration was locked in group think at the time and the inability of different views to get heard.
We are supposed to beleive that double hearsay from unnamed third parties is the absolute truth and proof of Trump’s unfitness.
But we are supposed to disregard the actual speach, emails, and texts of those on the left.
When Strzok texts that he was unpersuaded by McCabe’s plan to prevent Trump’s election and needed his own insurance – that we are supposed to take as mere political free speach – not the agents of our government conspiring to alter the outcome of an election.
With respect to the Trump’s “racism”
All of us are racist – including those on the left. All of us are Tribal. It is inarguable that Trump has layered preferences – just like all of us.
The problem with the left’s attack on Trump’s racism is that he is no more racist than the vast majority of the country, he is no more racist than those attacking him.
If you think “White Lives Matter” is racist – then so is “Black Lives Matter”.
I find it Hillarious that Trump is frequently accused of being anti-semite, and yet his son-in-law and one of his most influential advisors in the white house is an orthodox jew.
The left presume’s without question that anyone not on the hard left is more racist than they are – despite the fact that plenty of studies confirm that is false.
Rush Limbaugh’s producer and common substitute is a black man.
I do not like Limbaugh but that is not the point.
Anyone selling McCabe’s integrity is in the political tank and has no idea what integrity is.
There are very good reasons to ask questions about Baker’s at the moment.
There is no good explanation I can think of for Baker to have repeatedly contacted the Mother Jones journalist who first ran the Steele Dossier just before it was published.
But thus far the evidence against Baker is circumstantial.
Jay, thanks for trying to point out that Trump occasionally lies and/or lies about lying. When you view any leader as your tribal leader, very little that he does is really “bad”. It may be “keeping campaign promises”; how can that be bad- even if the idea itself is bad? It may be pushing bad bills through; well Obama did that with the ACA. It may be knowingly lying, Obama said “you could keep your doctor”, so how bad is that compared to “I will pay more taxes under this bill” and “I will drain the swamp” as you file your taxes on a post- card sized form.
On the plus side Obama did not supply defensive weapons to the Ukraine, and Trump will.
Obama did not support Nuclear, Trump may be doing that. Give him points for that (hmm, some hidden angle?). I’m sure he did other good stuff, but he didn’t get the trains to run on schedule.
Obama was cool, Trump just thinks he is- he ain’t, except in his own mind.
Obama dragged his feet and hid behind agencies when he didn’t like stuff- like the Keystone Pipeline, Trump put a fox in the EPA chicken coop and destroyed one of Nixon’s good policies (employees are leaving in droves). (Store water in your closet.)
Obama had plenty of apologists that did the apologizing with some dignity; Trump apologists are crude, just like their dear leader and a cabinet full of ass kissers. (Haley, you sold your soul when you uttered the Trump script at the U.N.).
The world (remember the Nobel Peace Prize) “thought” Obama was a good guy; the world “knows” that Trump is a bad guy that threatens countries and the U.N. on a regular basis because he is a crude thug.
I know there are those that can rationalize all of these negative remarks with thousands of words and cut graphics, but wearing rose- colored glasses and not seeing the shabby cloth of the emperor, does not beat the, whoops I almost said the “t” word. They can’t handle the “t” word.
dduck,I will be one that will rationalize Trumps actions. But this comes from someone far different than Jay and his support for a socialistic American government.
1. Obama apologized for America just being America. I believe that was due to the fact he was an immigrant to this country and was raised to be distrusting of America from a young age. I have always held that the young kids brought to this country illegally at a young age and raised American are citizens, while someone born in America, raised in a foreign country and then returns at an older age, is an immigrant.
2. As a christian, I believe in Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I also do not believe anyone has the right to name a capital city other than the nation itself. Our congress passed legislation in 1995 recognizing Jerusalem as the capital. All presidents since then have been playing ” king” and refusing to follow what congress approved.
3. Why should America allow Russia to invade a sovereign nation that I believe is part of NATO? Did we not agree to help defend these countries?
4. Keystone was 100% political. Look at a map of pipelines in America and one will find thousands of miles of pipelines. Stopping one coming across the border and having that oil come across in trains made no eco!logical sense. Trains have as many if not more derailments as pipeline’s leak. Both positions was playing to their base, not common sense.
Yes Trump is an asshole. But Haley is doing what is right.
I do not agree with all of Ron’s remarks, but there is a point even in that.
There are few near universal american values – which is why government must limit itself to those few values we share.
My disagreement with Ron, or with Trump or with Priscilla does not mostly put us in conflict.
Because all they seek is to persuade me and others.
But the left seeks to do more than persuade but to act – to employe force – with or without the consent of different views.
Trump is not some super hero, He is wrong on many things. But he is seeking to end the use of force to compel us to impose a set of values that is not near universal.
Much of his “authoritarianism”, his “tyranny”, his “totalitarianism” is to end compelling what can only be reached through persuasion.
My values are probably closer to the values the left seeks to impose by force.
But the ends do not justify the means.
And freedom is a principle, not a value. You can not violate the liberty of another – even by consensus, even for the greater good, but for a few universally accepted justifications.
I agree, Duckie, Obama was a screw up in many ways, which I’ve enumerated MANY MANY times. I wanted someone more centered as president. But not the BOOB WE GOT.
But the cartoonists are happy!
The biggest loser on the attacks on Trump has been Obama and his staff.
And that continues to grow.
Only among tRUMPSTER zealots trying to deflect from Mueller’s investigation.
Last week’s FOX poll showed Obama more popular than tRUMP – in Alabama!
Going after an ex-President and an ex-presidential challenger as #PresidentPooPoo and the Congressional Republicans are doing is going to prove disasterious for them and the nation.
If there’s a Democratic surge in forthcoming elections, the Democrats will do what the Republicans did. tRUMP will be hounded after that, investigation after investigation. Even if he’s savvy enough to strike a deal with Pense to quit for immunity, that won’t stop future revengeful efforts for multiple other charges in state courts. Unlike Nixon, who was allowed to skulk off in exile peacefully, Idiot Donald won’t get off so easily. It won’t matter if the suits lack merit, if there’s a thousand of them he’ll be engulfed in legal appearances and fees for the rest of his life. Watch for hashtags like #SueTrumpForever to start popping up soon.
A Democratic Congress and White House will spitefully dismember anything Trumpish as he has spitefully done to Obama. That will be horrible for our nation, and destroy continuity of government. But that’s what happens when you toss a monkey wrench into a complex machine – it incapacitates the mechanism.
Enjoy the future, as it devours us.
Only possibly Trump thinks Alabama is Trump country.
Trump’s appeal to southern conservatives has always been incredibly tepid.
The South was Pink rather than Red in 2016, many southern republicans stayed home.
Trump won the south only because there was ZERO possibility of it going for Clinton.
Approval ratings are far less consequential than you imagine.
We are not a democracy.
Regardless, you need supermajority support to expand government you do not even need a majority to shrink it – I am not talking Constitutionally, I am talking about reality, politics and human behavior.
You continue to forget that Trump won in 2016 with approval numbers not that far from those currently.
Taleeb – and economics in general makes the critical point that peoples expressions have no value or significance and never should be trusted unless they have “skin in the game”.
Answers to pollsters have no cost to people. They are only nominally predictive of voting.
We do have a significant problem with voting – because it too, has minimal cost – but atleast some.
I do not expect that the current tax reform will truly “favor the rich” as the left claims.
But it would be a very good thing if it did.
There are myriads of reasons for flat or nearly flat taxes with no deductions.
Everyone needs “skin in the game”.
You complain that Corker and other senators will benefit from the current tax plan.
But they will be evaluated by voters for their choices.
The same problem exists with voters.
Support of for PPACA completely tanks – when people are asked if they will pay even a small amount more for its benefits. With a cost – even a tiny cost, PPACA is not worthwhile to more than 1/4 of voters.
Just as you think Corker is conflicted – voters and the people are conflicted when we ask their opinion about legislation that may benefit them, but has no cost to them.
We want a tax regime such that all costs that government incurs have a cost to everyone.
Otherwise they have no “skin in the game” and their opinion is worthless.
It is immoral when A + B vote to take money from A, B, + C.
It is outright theft when A + B vote to take money from C.
Last if you had bothered to examine polling data, Trump’s “weakness” among republicans is not because they buy this Trump/Russia nonsense.
It is because they expected MORE from him.
They expected PPACA to be dead.
They expected the wall to be built,
They expected MORE people in washington to be fired.
You listed Trump’s broken campaign promises.
While I think you vastly over estimate their importance.
I think you are incapable of understanding the difference between what people want and what they need.
Trump voters that are unhappy about broken promises are not voting for any democrat ever,
are highly unlikely to sit out the election, and are not voting for a moderate Trump challenger.
Trump can afford to alientate the extreme right of the GOP so long as:
He has no credible threat to his own right, and he is sufficiently paletable to those to the right of him that they still vote.
Trump can have an unfavorablity rating of 100%, so long as there are still 51% of voters who will vote against the other choice – whatever it is.
Trump’s election has vastly disrupted political analysis and polling.
Not because he has changed human behavior.
But because he has revealed that polls do not properly measure human behavior.
You should have grasped huge clues to this in 2013 – when during and after the shutdown Republicans were barely polling in double digits.
Wise polsters grasped that ALOT of the GOP negative numbers were because voters expected republicans to cave, and were angry about that.
Something like 70% of the country did not want the debt limit raised even if that resulted in a default.
Regardless, 2014 proved to be a good election for republicans.
You should be thinking about that now.
Many things are the same.
Most of those that are different favor republicans.
Dave, I want a pair of your rose colored glasses. Polls may mean nothing, but Trump is an albatross around the more centrist voters neck and they will do a lot to get it off. Voting in Democrats will ” punish” Trump in their mind.
I look for three senate seats to switch from GOP to SHUMER. I would not be surprised to see 25 house seats to switch from GOP to PELOSI.
Thats why I am making financial changes well in advance of the market collapse.
If I have said polls mean nothing – then I misspoke.
What I am trying to convey is that they are a RELATIVE one dimensionally measure in a multi-dimensional space.
They tell us valuable things WHEN the point that they measure ABSOLUTELY corresponds with all the other factors that are not being measured.
There value diminishes when when pretend they are absolute – when they are not, and when we pretend they measure multiple attributes when they only measure one, and when poll answers have no cost.
We have had numerous instances more recently where polls have seriously mislead us.
The polls of republican favorability in 2013 were clearly being misunderstood.
I think the exactly same error is being made now.
Trump has absolutely demonstrated that polls are relative – his favorability only matters next to that of any opponent. A Generic opponent is likely to always to better. Tht generic opponent does not exist.
Regardless, the message I am trying to convey is not really to you – it is to those on the left who are style buying unicorns.
I may be wrong,. But I think that the ebulent left is engaged in self deception as they have been throughout this, and that they are going to be disappointed – possibily HIGHLY disappointed in 2018 and 2020.
I think demographic factors that are of dmininishing importance are responsible for many of the anti-incumbent swings in mid terms. Mitigate those and off year elections favor republicans not democrats.
The economy is the single most important factor not tied to the specific candidates in national elections.
The biggest threat to Republicans that I see is #metoo – despite the fact that most of the exposed perps are on the left, The high profile of Moore and Trump have made this an issue for democrats. More of this crap – beleive what I say, not what I do.
Moore’s loss weakens this as an issue for democrats.
Finally, the democrats remain a party with no message, no vision, they do not know who they are or what they stand for and NeverTrump is not enough. They remain too far to the left, and they remain committed to the same mistakes they have been making since 2009 that have cost them election after election.
With respect to the Senate – I would suggest looking at the actual races.
This is an incredibly proGOP senate map. The neutral prediction is +2 for Republicans.
The odds of democrats picking up two are very small.
Republicans are defending few seats and most of those are not vulnerable.
Democats are defending alot of seats and most of those are vulnerable.
I am less familiar with the House map, but as I have argued before the “great sorting” is nearly complete. That has been a major factor in house volatility.
Democrats nationwide have concentrated themselves in a small number of districts with very very high democratic majorities. That has left most of the rest of the country to weaker republican majorities.
At this point there are not that many truly “swing” congressional districts – ones that can go either way.
Dave I think we are closer in thinking about Trump than it appears, as well as some other issues. Where I am coming from is based on three distinct voters.
1. Never Trumpsters. Did not vote for him, never will.
2. Forever Trumpsters. Voted for him and will in any election.
3. Dumbster Trumpsters. Walked into the voting booth with the stench of Clinton and Trump attacking their senses. To them Trump s stench was less repulsive.
So how many of the Dumpster Trumpsters were part of the handful of votes in Penn. , Mich and the other states that swung the election that will find the current Trump to be far worse than they imagined and vote for the Democrat, thus swinging those states back to the Democrats in 2020.
I was in category 4.Never Trumpster, Never Clinton. Give me a Manchin type democrat and I will switch to category 1.
I would describe what you call “dumpster trumpsters” differently.
Otherwise I concur
I would also add one more catagory: “the deplorables”.
These are people who are tired of being pissed on as racists homophobes, … hateful hating haters by the left.
Some of these are despicable people,
but most are people who have come to accept gay marraige, but are not happy about being forced to “celebrate” everything gay by law.
They are people who think the mexican familiy down the street is fine and hard working,.
but the ones crossing the border today are dangerous criminals.
They are people who do not understand why we can not prevent islamic terrorism in the US by not allowing muslim immigrants. or atleast nto vetting them thoroughly.
These are people who think that you take care of your own before you save the world.
These are people who are OK with transgendered people – so long as they do not accidentally end up dating on, but do not want their daughters in showers in HS with biological males.
These are people who might support universal healthcare – but do not understand why they have to pay for the pill and abortions for others. And definitely do not understand forcing nuns to do so.
I can go through a bunch more Trump /america first stuff.
I am not one of these people.
Many of these people were Blue collar white democrats.
That voted for Trump
I am distinguishing them from your Dumpster Trumpsters for an important reason.
There reason for voting for Trump was only PARTLY because of his platform.
It was largely because democrats spent the past 20 years pissing on them, and they were tired of the identity politics. Trump actively courted them – but they were already alienated from democrats.
That has not changed.
In 2020 Trump will be the president. Warts and all he comes in front of the voters as a known quantity. Not a dangerous unknown as in 2016. That is a HUGE difference that does nto get well appreciated by democrats.
In 2020 – Trump may have a long list of accomplishements.
He will also have a list of failure – or atleast things that piss off democrats. But that will only effect people who were never voting for him anyway.
You have to come up with failures that effect the people who DID vote for him.
No matter what most “moderates” will know the world will not end if Trump is still president in 2021.
There is no democrat who will be running that can say that. Trump is going to work very hard to make every one of them look dangerous – and he is very good at that.
The pocohantus remarks are no accident Trump knows Warren is a likely competitor. He will be painting her as an untrustworthy fake. And as a culture warrior.
As one of the intolerants who pissed all over “the deplorables”
Democrats have done nothing to get “the deplorables” back.
Trump is going to be much harder to defeat in 2020 than most think right now.
Even if the election was in 2018 and you picked any current democrat contender – Trump would have labeled them and made them entirely unpaletable to the deplorables by the election.
He is very good at this.
I not only think he is going to win. I think that absent some unforseen disaster Trump in 2020 is already foreordained. Democrats have done nothing to address either of the mistakes they made in 2016. Without doing so they can not beat Trump.
Maybe some other republican in 2024. But not Trump.
Dave, would be nice if GOP messaged their positions as you stated the ” deplorables” positions to be. I would categorize those as ” common sense” deplorable positions even though you do not believe in common sense.
But Trump will make sure he steps on his lolly with tweets to negate anything pksitive just as he has with his Dec 26th tweet that is news and not coverage of the tax legislation.
I do not beleive that what most people call “common sense” is either common or sense.
you and I and Jay do not agree on what is “common sense”.
Of those things each of us might call “common sense” nearly all are first order evealutaions with a high probability of proving wrong overall.
The GOP is unbeleivably bad at messaging – so am I.
The left is incredibly good at messaging.
Skill at messaging and truth have little to do with each other.
Jay, I have to agree with most of this and what the democrats will do after January 2019. The voters made their decision in 2016 and the demicrats should accept that decision. The voters made their decision in 2008 and 2012 and the GOP should have accepted that decision. Both parties are my career, my parties agenda and screw the country.
The GOP wasted millions on Bengahzi when they knew the only outcome was to keep Clinton from winning. The democrats will do the same to Trump and to hell with the country.
So when the Democrats take over in 2019, they can repeal the tax legislation and reinstate the the requirement to buy health insurance. They can reinstate most of Obamas regulations and even though Keystone most likely cant be stopped by then, they can throttle the flow with EPA regulations and they can block any further drilling in Alaska.
Come May or June, I am going to reposition my retirement accounts to almost all fixed income and remove the risk of a stock market downturn.
Why should the marketnstay at or around 25,000 and not start a return to 19,000 as it was when Trump took office. One has to wonder what impact a 25% drop in the markets will have on economic growth when that happens.
Now when the future is what you describe, I am going to be an optimist. When that happens, it is going to change the snowflakes of today into a much more aware and educated generation because the pain they feel will be some of the pain our past generations felt during the 1930’s. They will find out what it is like when putting food on the table takes priority.
The people should accept the results of elections. Right/left, ….
Getting elected only delivers the opportunity to lead. It DOES NOT dictate that you will get what you want.
Obama and democrats had the opportunity to lead in 2008.
They failed. Their first task was to repair the economy – they both failed and ignored that and diverted efforts to things that they did not have a mandate to lead.
Almost no one challenged Obama’s legitimacy as president.
The ultimately successful republican challenge was to the leadership choices that Obama and democrats made.
Trump was elected our leader until 2020. Democrats need not agree with his agenda, they are free to vigorously oppose that agenda. But demnocrats particularly those inside of the executive branch, during and after the election act corruptly if they act to “influence” the election.
The left is fixated on this Russian influence nonsense. Russia is actually allowed to try to influence our elections. Our government is NOT.
I have problems with the Mueller investigation – because it is a criminal investigation, but there is no crime. The Mueller investigation is also a constitutionally improper synthesis of a counter intelligence investigation – which has almost no constitutional constraints and a criminal one which has high constitutional constraints. Inside CIA, NSA, FBI and DOJ we have a chinese wall between these to prevent abuse of rights.
If you wish to investigate Russia and the election – that is an FBI/CIA/NSA counter intelligence investigation following those rules.
If you wish to investigate Trump politically – contemplating impeachment – the house and the senate must do that.
If you wish to investigate Trump and other criminally – then you need to follow the constitution – you must allege a specific crime and have sufficient evidence for probable cause.
Otherwise you are engaged in an unconstitutional witch hunt.
What we have now is far worse than Benghazi or anything that was done with Obama.
In fact what is patently obvious at this point is that throughou the Obama administration the DOJ/FBI were actively protecting the administration, and actively targetting its enemies
THAT is FAR WORSE than watergate. That is FAR WORSE than this russin collusion nonsense even if the unicorn was real.
We may not have law enforcement as a political arm of government.
We do not have a checka, a Gestapo, a Stassi.
With respect to Benghazi – sorry Ron. Perfectly legitimate.
It is the absolute role of congress to provide oversight for the executive.
There are two major issues with Benghazi – the first is that a bad thing happened, and we should ALWAYS determine what and why and what we can do about that.
The answer might be nothing. In this case the answer is that the administration was unprepared for something trivially predictable, and separately that the administration handcuffed any who could have done anything by driving all decisions to the top and making them on a political basis rather than the actual interests of the country. That is also what is now being exposed regarding U1, and The Hezbolla drug dealing, and the Iran Nuke deal, and the administration handling of Syria and the administrations dealing with Russia.
Whith a few execptions NONE of this is criminal But all of it was WRONG, and all of it should have been investigated far MORE thoroughly.
What is self evident to me is not that we wasted too much on Benghazi, but that we FAILED at oversight of the obama administration.
We want bad decisions to come to light – because that is how we learn from them.
Conversely the Clinton email investigation is a perfectly legitimate criminal investigation, that it is extremely clear that FBI/DOJ deliberately botched. Had a fraction of the enthusiasm and effort been targeted at the Clinton investigation in 2015, any of a number of other democrats would have been the Democratic candidate in 2016. Several of Clintons staff should have been charged and likely plead. Clinton herself would have been too damaged to run. And that would have been perfectly appropriate.
Separately, yes, the Republican investigations of Benghazi did have politically maiming clinton as an objective – that is inside the power of congress. It is NOT inside the power of DOJ.
Just as congress has every right to conduct the investigations Mueller is engaged in but Mueller does not.
The rule of law does prelude politics, it merely requires that our governments criminal powers be directed at crimes. That political investigations be conducted as political investigations,
Mixing them makes us no different from the USSR, or Nazi’s or Mao, or …
Should democrats regain control of congress in 2019 they are unlikely to be able to do what you list – just as republicans could not when they were in control and Obama was president.
Almost all of what Trump has done thus far has been within his legitimate powers as president – while much of what Obama did was not. Congress reversing that requires passing new laws, which requires the presidents consent or a majority sufficient to override a veto.
Dave “With respect to Benghazi – sorry Ron. Perfectly legitimate.
It is the absolute role of congress to provide oversight for the executive.”
Agree. But this investigation was not oversight of the executive. It started in October 2012 after about a month of congressional letters, questions, etc. It ended with a whimper in December 2016. My word, how ironic, 4 years to determine what was known in 2012 and ends just a few weeks after the election.
It may have started as oversight, but by the end of 2013 it was being designed to take down Clinton. Total waste of time and money. The same with Russia, Russia, Russia.
Ron;
I do not think it ended with a whimper.
It took so long – actually it was a sequence of investigations, getting re-opened everytime new evidence was found, because the administration witheld information.
The key aspects to the investigation:
The first is whether the administration was prepared.
That was answered quickly – no!
The next is why wasn’t anything done during the 13hr’s the attack took place ?
That really has never been adequately answered. But with the more recent revelations in other areas, what is evident is that decisions on EVERYTHING were made at the whitehouse.
Obama did not delegate any decision that might have political consequences.
That made getting decisions incredibly slow and often resulted in missed oportunities – in some instances the WH deliberately destroyed opportunities.
The rule in the military is to allow the officer regardless of rank closest to the conflict to make the tactical decisions so long as they are consistent with pre-existing strategy.
So the top question is was the US strategy to protect our embassies and CIA facilities ?
Not on the night of 9/11 but before the attack.
If it was – then the forces int eh area should have made their own choices and been supported
The CIA listening post was ultimately only relieved because Delta ignored orders to stand down and figured out how to get there are relieve them – otherwise about 40 people would have been massacred. But much much more could have been done. It is highly unlikely that the Ambassador could have been saved. But there would have been far less questions had we tried – and far less risk to the CIA listening post.
The movie “13 hours” tries not to be political – but it is pretty damning.
The ex-military contractors protecting stevens and the CIA needed little help, but they got none.
They were engaged in an Alamo like fight – and for 13 hours they stood their ground.
But absent the arrival of Delta at the last minute they and 40 other people would have died.
Delta’s mere presence was enough to end it – the terrorists left as soon as Delta arrived.
A force of more than a hundred was held off by 6 people for 13 hours. They would have been obliterated with the addition of a small number of delta.
The next issue is why was the administration lying starting immediately after the attack ?
Determining that required finding out who knew what and when.
That was not truly revealed until the Clinton Emails from her private server started to become available, and that was not until 2015. That is when we learned that while the attack was going on – Clinton was telling foreign leaders that it was a terrorist attack. that she even knew the group likely responsible. It was also from those emails that the plot to blame it on an internet video was exposed. We even learned that they changed the video they intended to blame over night when they found no one in the mideast had yet seen the one they planned on blaming.
The investigation would have gone far faster – had the administration cooperated.
BUT Clinton’s chances of becoming president would have been destroyed.
Some other democrat would have run in 2016.
Yes, Republicans were after Clinton.
But she deserved what she got from them.
If that is what ended in her loss – that should be a lesson to all politicians.
Dragging things out is not always good for you.
Even when you have DOJ and FBI covering for you – the truth will out.
I would strongly suggest Jay and Roby think about that.
If I am totally wrong about Trump or Russia – it will eventually get out.
If the obama administration actually had the evidence these “authorities” claim that it did – we would already have that evidence.
One of the reasons the house and senate committes have been as persistant as they are – is they have been stonewalled by DOJ and FBI and NSA and CIA since the beginging of the Obama administration. The republicans in congress long ago accepted that the Obama administration has been hiding hidings from them. It is still difficult – but now they have starting to crack the samn of obstruction.
What is getting out is going the wrong way. It is going against Obama not Trump.
So finally Ben Ghazi was important because it increased the distrust of congress for the various executive agencies – and now they are paying back their anger.
Clinton lied repeatedly about Ben Ghazi – starting the night of the attack.
If you catch Trump in a similar lie about Russia – he will be gone.
There is no doubt Clinton lied. There is no evidence at all that Trump has.
That is the difference.
“The people should accept the results of elections. Right/left, ….”
Argument via inanity.
With exceptions, duh.
That’s why the Constitution includes them.
An ELECTED office holder isn’t immune from those exceptions.
Nor immune from REJECTION.
I would suggest actually reading the constitution.
You tell me it provides exceptions,
what it does not say is after election some of the people get to have a do-over if they do not like the results.
There is no exception for hypothetical russian influence.
There are only two means to remove the president in the constitution.
BOTH require 66 senators to vote for removal.
One requires 51% of the house the other 66% of the house.
After the election you did not have the means to acheive either.
You still do not.
Further one of the reasons the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional, is because it is really a disguised impeachment investigation – and only the house can do that.
That is why the Starr IC reported to the house – not the DOJ.
Mueller can investigate crimes – but none have been alleged.
That is why this is a soft coup.
You have nothing – aside from your own outrage.
There is no exceptions in the constitution for outraged losers.
Republicans were in the same position as you in 2009.
A few did as you are doing and tried to confront Obama’s legitimacy as president.
But most republicans accepted Obama as president and spent the next 8 years trying to legitimately constrain his actions and to change the outcome of the NEXT election.
That is not what you are doing.
There is no REJECTION provision in the constitution.
“You tell me it provides exceptions,
what it does not say is after election some of the people get to have a do-over if they do not like the results.”
EXCEPTIONS to REMAINING in office, dummy. There are TWO of them.
That is why this is a soft coup.”
Ah, another FOX supplicant! I thought you claimed you could think for yourself.
“There is no REJECTION provision in the constitution.”
How do you end up conflating rejection of a buffoons policies, attitudes, behavior with the Constitution?
“EXCEPTIONS to REMAINING in office, dummy. There are TWO of them.”
Correct – and you do not get to construe them into infinity.
But I grasp that the left is not used to the constitution meaning what it says.
Take High Crimes and Misdemeanors – and head over to the house.
If you can get 51% of the house to byte, you get to have a trial in the senate where you need 66 votes.
I hear muttering about that. I do not hear action – because you do not have a basis that the people will accept – hence the term soft coup.
Further, you can create your basis – throught self evident facts – you have none, or though congressional investigation.
You can not do so through members of the executive substituting their constitutional obligations – which includes serving the president for their own personal beleifs – hence “soft coup”.
If you beleive but do not have proof that the person elected should not be president and you can not serve them – you must resign, or be fired. There is no constitutional provision for doing your own thing. The powers of the executive are vested ONLY in the president. If you are in the executive and acting against the president – you are engaged in a soft coup.
If you are plotting “insurance” in the event the person you prefer in not election – you are engaged in a “soft coup”
I FOX happens to be parroting me – I would not know – I do not watch FOX, but that might be because I am obviously right.
“How do you end up conflating rejection of a buffoons policies, attitudes, behavior with the Constitution?”
Your opinion regarding the policies, attitudes, behavior of the president are legitimately acted on only through the ballot box and through congress.
You may say whatever you please, but you have only two legitimate courses of action.
Further Congress may only act on the attitude and behavior of the president through impeachment.
Look back at your own posts – there are not engaged in a debate over policies.
They are not an effort to motivate congress to enact different policies or to block his.
They are not an effort to demonstrate that Trump is acting outside the constitution – you do not even care about that.
Your posts are about personal offense, not about governance.
Hence “soft coup”
It should be trivial for you to grasp that with few exceptions the attacks on Trump are of a completely different character than those on Obama.
The only attack on Obama that challenged the legitimacy of his election was the birth certificate attack. Which Obama inflamed. Regardless, that is still a constitutional and factual attack.
Not some nonsensical claim that the president is unfit because you do not like him or his voters are stupid and must have been duped.
Republicans vigorously opposed Obama’s policies. They worked in congress to stop them.
They worked int he courts to block his unilateral actions as president or to block the laws democrats managed to enact. They were mostly successful – Obama has more 9-0 losses in the supreme court than any prior president.
There was almost no derious discussion of impeachment – though there were far better grounds than you have. Hell we have Obama caught conspiring with Russia on a hot mike before the 2012 election. If you had anything close to that on Trump he would already be impeached.
You are free to do the same.
Regardless, you are completely unwilling to conform your own behavior, conduct or speech to the same standards you impose often forcefully on others.
That is egregious hypocracy.
When acted on through government that is lawlessness and in this case a “soft coup”
Going forward, whenever you use the term “the Left” please add the qualifier “of me.”
And the prequalifier “anyone” ..
That will put your comments in better perspective.
To clarify, say “anyone Left of me…”
It will WIDEN the scope of those targeted cohorts.
“Going forward, whenever you use the term “the Left” please add the qualifier “of me.””
NOPE!
The left = that would be about the left 1/8 of the country.
That would be about the left 1/2 of the democratic party.
A bit over 1/4 of the country is democrat, a bit under is republican.
Somewhere north of 40% of people – and 60% of millenials self identify as fiscally conservative socially liberal – though only a small but growing portion will identify as libertarain – even when told that the big tent deffinition of libertarian is fiscally conservative socially liberal.
People exactly like me – do not make up but a tiny portion of the population.
But people more like Ron or I that others here make up the plurality of the population.
It is the actual right and left that are the minority. Further though the “middle” is predominant – the largest portion of the middle is libertarianish, not moderate as it seems to be defined here.
Obviously this is skewed by the fact that people do not fit into buckets nicely.
But this is also consistent with the fact that trust in government has been declining for decades and is near single digits. It is self evident that “the left” including you have a far higher degree of trust in government than most of us.
No everyone does not share my degree of distrust, but that doesn’t make them pro-government lefties.
One of the things I do not understand about you is why you are not thankful and supportive of limited government given that people like Trump can be elected president.
You seem to think that government should be empowered to take advantage of that unicorn hypothetical best case where we elect the perfect leaders, rather than designed arround the near certainty that most of the time government will be constructed of people who most of us would not trust to baby sit our children.
Regardless, Trump was elected by the people. I understand that you do not like that.
I do not understand why you do not grasp that as an excellent basis for limited government.
I would be far more concerned about Trump if he treated the constrainsts of the constitution with the same disdain as Obama. You should be very afraid that he might, or if not he, then some subsequent president.
Far too many seem to beleive that we will always have angels governing us – despite the fact that we never have.
As president Trump has taken two actions thus far that I beleive were outside his constitutional authority.
1). He suspended the penalty for failing to have health insurance.
I am not completely sure that was outside his powers – I would have to read the relevant portions of PPACA as it provided the executive with significant discretion. But on the surface that appears something he could not do. A court challenge should resolve that easily.
2). He extended DACA temporarily. DACA enacted by executive order policy in conflict with the law. Obama was not empowered to do that, Trump was not empowered to do that temporarily.
Where congress must act, only congress can act. Undoing legislation can only be accomplished by congress or the courts.
To my knowledge every other action of Trump thus far has been constrained by the powers granted him by the constitution. The same can not be Said of Obama.
I sometimes do not agree with Trump. I far more often disagreed with Obama, who breached the constitution nearly as easily as he breathed.
I do not get into a frothing spittle filled lather over those disagrements.
I would also note that for several decades the parties have been one-upping each other in abridging the rules. To be clear both parties have played this game.
The fillibuster is completely gone with respect to appointments.
There are almost no constitutional constraints left on executive power.
I am in fact shacked that Trump has mostly NOT acted unilaterally outside of his authority as Obama did. The left should hope and pray that continues. A Trump acting like Obama would be a tyrant – and Obama was.
Regardless, you should remember that every action taken by the left has justified a similar action by the right. This process is called polarization and it is what has divided the country.
If you do not play by the rules. If you do not conform to the rule of law – you can not expect others to.
The stock market is ONE measure of the economy – not the other way arround.
We have alot of very serious economic threats that have built up over the course of the past 20 years, that deeply concern me. NONE of these are Trump’s responsibility. But if any of them goes critical, Trump and republicans absolutely will get the blame.
At the same time Trump is doing ALOT right – almost everything on your list that you think democrats would reverse. Those have an effect too.
4Q growth is anticipated to be between 3.5 and 4%.
And NO the economy was not rising in 2016, it was FALLING, we were headed towards a recession, and Trumps election near immediately reversed the trend.
There is no – this recovery was the consequence of Obama garbage.
Further an economy running at 1.8% growth is very fragile – it does not take much to trigger a recession.
An economy running at 3.5% growth is much harder to driv towards recession – not impossible, but harder.
With each strong quarter the odds that the following quarter will be weaker rather than stronger diminish.
Finally all of the above actually has a foundation – the patterns and trends above are observations of reality, They are the consequences, not the causes.
The cause of growth is production, the cause of further production is investment.
The cause of investment is confidence int he future and the lack of impediments.
The greatest threat to the current economy is the perception that democrats will take over in 2018 and wreak havoc.
Jay, this ones for you.
Merry Christmas. May your New Year be way better than 2017!! Given this, you may have one!!!!!
http://www.yahoo.com/news/m/2ba0db96-2729-353a-b9ea-1dc43be6643d/scary-signs-donald-trump-may.html
What garbage.
Purportedly he is on the verge of a breakdown, and at the same time his behavior and conduct is no different than it has been throughout his life.
Further we have this standard leftist nonsense that speach is violence.
I have problems with some of his tweets.
But tweeting stupid or otherwise is NOT signs of dangerous violence.
I am not aware of any evidence ever of Trump engaging in actual violence.
In terms of his choices to use violence as president his choices have been more rational than his predecessors.
We are all afraid of Kim Un and NK.
No one has the right answer.
It is nearly universally agreed that we are dealing with a lunatic and a nation of sychophants who have no connection to reality.
I can not condemn Trump for his handling of NK absent atleast the pretense of knowing the right way to deal with NK. I do not have that.
I am fully cognizant of the fact that Trump’s tactics could push us into a nuclear conflict.
They also may avoid it. Anyone who claims to know which is betting on ouija boards.
We do know that apeasement and strategic patients have failed.
There are excellent ethical reasons that psychiatrists should not diagnose patients over the internet, this article demonstrates that.
It is “possible” trump is losing it. It is possible that Hillary, or Mcconnell, or McCain, or Ryan or … are losing it. If that is so we will find out in time.
“his behavior and conduct is no different than it has been throughout his life.”
You mean he’s still groping pussy, trying to screw married woman, busting into girls dressing rooms, screwing contractors out of fees, bankrupting his own businesses for his own profit, hanging out with mafiaos, talking dirty on radio, setting up Faux education schools, taking loans from sneaky Russians, cheating on his golf scores? Wow, amazing he has time for all that and Tweeting too!
Cartoonists and comics should be benefiting massively from Trump.
I am not sure any president ever is a more suitable comic target.
Further we have had four stiffling years of Obama where even left leaning comics (redundant) had to be careful of their humor lest they be accused of racism.
Dave, you really believe he will be reelected with stupid, moronic, imbecilic comments like this? There is no way this guy gets reelected and then when reports include the taxes for the middle class go up (in 2025), people are going to buy this crap. (No way the congress in 2025 is going to let taxes go up under their watch). But people will believe that and vote against the GOP reform.
I do hope you can see a complete lack of common sense in Trump even though you argue it is in the eye of the beholder.
http://www.newsweek.com/president-donald-trump-rich-friends-lot-richer-tax-bill-758234
Ron, leaving aside other arguments, the only way to pass the tax bill through the process of reconciliation requires that the tax cuts sunset after a specific date.
This is exactly the problem that W. Bush ran into in 2001, and , when the tax cuts were due to expire in 2010, Obama made a deal to keep them for lower income Americans, but not for the upper middle class and rich.
The rule itself doesn’t make any sense, but you can’t really blame it on Republicans…it would be the same if Democrats wanted to pass a tax cut without GOP support. Except that Democrats never want to cut taxes 😉
I do not have a problem with the house and senate having their own rules – though I do not expect those will be meaningful much longer.
My most critical problem is that the functioning of the rules – as well as all the checks and balances, is supposed to be to make acting on the power of government so difficult it requires super majority support.
I favor that – greatly.
The problem is that we have the WRONG symmetry in the rules.
If it requires a super majority to extend government, if should not even require a majority to roll it back. Instead we have the opposite, if ever the left can manage to get through hook or crook the political force necescary to expand government powers, it then takes the same or greater levels of support to kill that expansion of power.
The reconcillation rules have the wrong criteria. Mere majorities – if that should always have the ability to undo any expansion of federal power. While super majorities should be required even to maintain it.
If it took a supermajority to spend more money, to raise more taxes, to reduce our liberties,
anything less than a super majority should be sufficient to undo those.
Re-reading your comment, Ron, I think I may have missed your main point.
I do think that Trump constantly “steps on” his own policy successes, by consistently exaggerating them, and/or picking unnecessary fights over stupid stuff.
But, I also think that he believes that this is the way he won the election, and that the ongoing and constant attempt to unseat him causes him to continue to do this. He sees his role as that of someone who is dismantling the “fundamental transformation” of the US, that was begun by Obama and would have been continued by Hillary.
It’s a disruptive role, not a uniting role, and he appears to be ok with that. Disrupters are very rarely “nice” people, so I do agree with you that re-election may be difficult. But, that may depend on 1) who the Democrats choose to nominate and 2) whether Trump chooses to run again.
I think he will run again, but would not be surprised if he doesn’t…….
Priscilla, those with intellectual abilities understand when to act and when to stop. Marketing people know that a message only last so long and then a new message has to be introduced. If this were not the case, Buick would still be using “when better cars are built, Buick will build them” in their ads. Trump’s message got him elected. People thought it was refreshing to here a politician demean his opponent in the way he did. But that message was not based on stupidity. The current issues is he shoots first without thinking. They are not a message for America, it is a message for a chosen few.
I have to agree somewhat that Trump is losing his mental edge, and now I am hopeful he goes nuts before too long so Pence can take over. That will never happen, just wishful thinking. But when you get big wins like the tax reform package and then you make asinine remarks about how much his rich bitch friends will make off the deal, that just undermines everything the GOP is trying to do and now their message will be covered up by his own words.
I read an article today that talked about Tennessee and their senatorial election. Democrats are running a former two term governor that was well liked and well respected. Against two rather right wing extreme Trumper’s. No way the democrats will approve anything Trump sends them. Jays prediction will all be too true.
Effective long term marketing requires representing a positive truth in the most flattering way.
Any marketing message that people perceive as true has legs so long as people continue to perceive that. There are many many enduring marketting pitches – at most slightly altered to subtly reflect changes in time.
When a marketting message is constantly changes that either means the message did not work, or it was not true or both.
Boredom with Trump’s remarks will not hurt him. Trump’s remarks are his foil to the media.
If people are tuning Trump out – they are tuning the media out two.
That is still a win for Trump.
Boredom is the enemy of the left right now.
As we get bored with this Trump Russia nonsense – Trump and republicans grow stronger.
The better threat to Trump is the #metoo threat. Trump can not escape it.
But it is problematic for democrats – because so many of their own have been ensnared too, and using it against Trump REQUIRES purging their own ranks everytime another victim is revealed.
“The poll, released Tuesday, found Blackburn is viewed positively by 37 percent of all registered Tennessee voters while Bredesen is viewed positively by 34 percent. Thirty-one percent of respondents said they have negative feelings for Blackburn, while 29 percent had negative feelings for Bredesen.”
This is an Oct. poll – since then both have risen – some polls have one ahead, some have the other.
Bredesen’s opponent has dropped out – which should strenghten his support,
But Blackburn should get a significant bump when she locks up the republican nomination.
I do not think you are going to find that Blackburn was perving teens 3 decades ago.
Her negatives are known.
If the race is close now – it will go whichever way the respective parties go in the next 9 months.
I would bet heavily that Republicans will improve between now and Nov. While democrats will weaken.
Rather than Jay’s scenario the more likely is that Blackburn replaces Corker.
I guess I have yet to see any real evidence that Trump is losing it, Ron. He’s always been a brash, egotistical, and somewhat rude public figure…that has played well in NYC and on TV, and it got him past 16 primary GOP opponents and Hillary Clinton. I think he just thinks that he should stay with what he believes is a winning formula…he may be wrong, but I don’t think that he’s crazy.
My initial inclination is to think that the Newsweek story is being spun to give it the most negative implication. Certainly, the writer of the column was not at Mar-a-Lago, and didn’t hear the context in which Trump assured his rich friends that they would get “a lot richer.” Maybe he was referring to stock market gains, or maybe to the fact that their corporations would be more successful…. or maybe he really has been lying through his teeth about his view of the tax reform law.
But it does seem odd to me that two of Trump’s “friends” would talk to a Newsweek reporter about a conversation that they had with him ~ especially one that reflects poorly on his agenda. Maybe the reporter is very gullible….
I also find it telling that the only thing that the media can come up with to trash the tax cut law is that taxes will go up in 2027! So much can and will happen before then. It seems to me to be an admission that, in the meantime, taxes for the middle class will go down.
As far as the political climate over the next year, I think that it will continue to look pretty good for the Democrats. Most Americans don’t like and don’t trust one-party rule, which is what we have now. But, I don’t think that impeachment will necessarily be the great victory that the Democrats believe it will be, unless, between now and then, something comes up to convince most Trump supporters that he has committed a crime, or abused his constitutional powers. If he’s impeached over some trumped -up sexual assault allegations, Democrats run the risk of a backlash from people who will see the impeachment as a witch hunt, just as so so many people now see the Mueller investigation.
Maybe I’m naive, but I think most people want the government to work as it was intended to, and react poorly to witch hunts.
Priscilla, ” I think he just thinks that he should stay with what he believes is a winning formula…he may be wrong, but I don’t think that he’s crazy. ”
You may be right and he may not be going senile. But he needs to realize he never really won anything. He just lost by a lessor number than anyone else. He won the general election due to our method of electing a President. Thsnks to our founding fathers we dont have Clinton as president and Obama as a SCOTUS justice. But to really win, you need 50% plus one to really be a winner.
He never received more than 35% or so of the first few primaries. He just lost by fewer votes than 15 others. Had it been Trump v any of the other 3 who received delegates, he would have gone home after March. He ended up with 44% of the total GOP primary vote, but that was due to overwhelming margins in NY and the in CA and NJ well after securing the nomination. And even then if it were not for winner take all in many states, he would not have secured the nomination as early as he did and Cruz or Rubio may have made it a much closer vote at the end.
But thats all history. I dont like the way the GOP chooses a nominee. Winner take all should be eliminated. And there could be ways to limit the number of candidates through state party rules. Somehow 10 candidates splitting 40-50% of the vote should not occur. This creates the Trumps to hijack the parties. The democrats did it with super delegates and that did not work. We ended up with Clinton. But there has to be a moderate position where 3-4 battle it out.
So we are stuck with what we have. My thinking is any GOP candidate in 2018 needs to do everything they can to separate themselves from Trump and be extremist active with their local PR efforts to show how their votes are helping the voters. I think anyone in a close election is going to find Trump a noose around their neck.
And if the GOP loses the senate, that may be the last of McConnell.
If you score more touchdowns in a football game than your opponent – that is called WINNING.
The fact that they mich have more yards does not change who won.
Trump won by the rules. Had the rules been differnet – both candidates would have campaigned differently and there is no telling what the outcome would be.
If the football team with the most yards wins the game – games would be played differently.
While there is more basis for your primary argument – he still won by the rules.
And had the initial primaries been in different states all kinds of different outcomes would have been possible.
If you do not like the rules – change them.
Winning by the rules is still winning.
I am fine with changing the rules – but then you have to propose the new rules and get sufficient support for them to change them.
I would likel to see rules that provide MORE opportunities for more candidaes rather then less.
But that is nto the current rules.
“And if the GOP loses the senate, that may be the last of McConnell.”
So a GOP loss would atleast have a silver lining.
The effectiveness of this “The sky is falling” nonsense declines rapidly absent facts and evidence to feed the flames.
How many of these “trumpocalypse” stories have proven true ?
You make some very good points, Ron (as you almost always do).
And, to be sure, Trump’s victory had a lot to do with Hillary being one of the worst candidates ever. I doubt that he would have beaten Joe Biden (even though I think Biden would have made a very weak president).
As far as 2018, I think that the next few months will make the difference in whether or not the GOP holds on to their congressional majorities. Trump needs to get his approval rating up to the high 40’s in order to help his party’s candidates, and whether he can do that is very questionable. While many people like his agenda, they hate his personality, and that’s a big problem for Republicans. Honestly, I don’t know if he’s capable of changing his personality…he is who he is.
On the other hand, if he gets a big infrastructure bill passed, and people start realizing that they will actually benefit from the tax cuts, and if (a BIG if) he can stop tweeting about nonsense, they might actually hold on.
The other reason that it’s important for him to get his own numbers up is to avoid having a primary challenger of his own for 2020. I seriously doubt that anyone could successfully challenge him, but he could be so weakened by a divided party, that the Democrats could win. Same with an independent candidate, especially if one comes from his right.
Regardless of what happens, the fact is that Trump has already effectively undone much of Obama’s domestic agenda, he’s appointed many good judges and he’s put the US in a much stronger position as an energy producer, rather than an energy consumer nation. With all of the constant drama going on with the Mueller investigation, much of that just gets overlooked.
Alternate histories are dangerous and really impossible to predict.
In 2015 Democrats thought Clinton was the best candidate. She was the heir aparent.
She was the anointed, it was her turn.
Biden would have had advantages that Clinton did not, and disadvantages that clinton did not
This is also why tests against “generic” democrats or republicans are meaningless.
As a rule – though rare events sometimes tip elections – it is highly unlikely but for the Iran Hostage crisis that Reagan could have defeated Carter. Beyond that a good general remains a good general even if you change the opponent.
Trump defeated Clinton – using startegy and tactics necescary to beat clinton.
He would have used different strategies and tactics on Biden or Warren or …
What is likely over the next 10 months ?
Mueller strikes gold – odds low and declining rapidly – gold has to be possible, it isn’t.
Results – disaster for republicans and Trump
Mueller has a couple more meaningless indictments or plea bargans with non-entities.
Results – fewer defections from Democrats as a result of bored or increasingly angry moderates who want to know where’s the beef ?
Recession – very low odds. Less likely today than at this time in 2016.
Results – republican bloodbath in 2018 – but Trump could still get re-elected in 2020 if the recession is short and recovery steep.
War:
Results – I have no idea what the effect would be on Republicans in 2018, but the american people have NEVER voted a president out of office during wartime.
I am trying to think of any other possible even in the next 10 months that could harm republicans.
So the positive events:
Mueller fizzles. the odds of this are high which is why Trump is unlikely to fire Mueller.
I would note that while most of the rest of us can only guess about Trump/Russia. Trump ans his team KNOW the truth. Most of us are very poor at re-appraising the odds based on the knowledge of other parties. If Trump knows there was collusion he near certainly would have fired Mueller long ago. The odds of surviving an impeachment for firing Mueller are higher than surviving one after Mueller finds the goods. Nixon fired Cox, because Nixon was guilty.
It is near certain that Trump and his family sat down with their lawyers and gamed all of this out.
If there is no collusion then the best political and legal move is to let Mueller fizzle on his own.
You can – and Trump did, attack every mistake Mueller makes – that is good strategy.
Results – backlash against democrats.
Economy continues to grow:
Trump won the election – that is self evident.
I do not see where as president he has substantially changed his approach.
If you expect a different outcome in the future people who voted for him must change their minds.
Trump can lather his enemies into frothing insanity without serious harm.
However rapid those who never were voting for him in the first place get is irrelevant.
Jordan peterson has an excellent video on Trump’s IQ on youtube.
I do not think Peterson is a big Trump fan.
But he notes that most of the claims tha trump is stupid are very dangerous underestimations.
Trump has succeeded greatly – that STRONGLY correlates with high IQ.
Trump has succeeded greatly in MULTIPLE domains – construction, real estate, casino’s reality TV, and politics – that correlated strongly with high IQ.
For the most part he gives his own speeches, he does not use stump speeches, he is incredibly good sensing the mood of crowds. he ad libs very successfully,
He surrounds himself with smart people, he gets diverse advice, but he tends to ultimately trust his own decision making – again correlates highly with intelligence.
All of the things he does that correspond with high IQ also correspond with failure.
But the failures are far less significant than the successes. Trump has failed in many of the areas he has also succeeded.
My point is not to make Trump out as having an IQ of 160. Those people are incredibly rare and Trump is not one of those. But he does likely fall into the catagory fo people so smart that we only meet a few like that in our lifetime.
The point is that if you are calling Trump stupid – you are saying far more about yourself than about him.
Your observation that Trump is a disrupter is astute.
I would go beyond that he is dismantling the work of Obama,
I do not think Trump will ever be remembered as as nice a person as Ronald Reagan.
Unlike Jay and Roby, I grasp that the greatest threats to Trump is the economy.
It seems increasily unlikely he is going to trigger a trade war.
He has a fantstic opportunity for a win-win on trade with the UK that he has not thus far embraced, and that I see as a significant mistake.
IF Trump presides over two terms of 3% economic growth he will be remembered forever as a top 1/4 president – no matter how much some might loathe him.
IF he can get growth above 4% for much of his presidency he will eclipse reagan.
IF and only if he fails economically – all the other issues that Jay etc rant about will result in his being remembered as a soundrel.
I keep trying to remind everyone – a single generation with growth 1% higher than it would have been otherwise, will have more positive benefits for society than all social safetynet programs anywhere ever combined.
If Trump maintains growth about 3% – Republicans are going to be re-running Reagan’s “its morning in america” commericals in the fall fo 2018, and Trump will be running them in 2020.
I beleive that one of the reasons that democrats are so desparate to get trump, is because intuitively they know they failed, and they know he is likely to succeed, and they must stop him before he does so.
The political situation and prospect of republicans can turn rapidly.
9 months before the 1980 election the polls had Reagan at 35% and Carter at 65%.
Dave, to jump into your conversation with Priscilla (forgive me for being rude), I agree with yu that if the economy is roaring along at 3.5 to 4% growth, interest rates have not gone up significantly, unemployment is low and then throw in some infrastructure legislation and maybe DACA and immigration reform measures, he will be hard to defeat.
But remember this is Trump. The RNC and campaign can put out information on a Monday that they think will give them positive news coverage until the coming weekend and Trump, being Trump, will tweet some idiotic insane Trumpism on Tuesday morning and that will be covered for the rest of the week.He will completely defeat the positive information.
“But remember this is Trump”
The same Trump who won in 2016 against the odds.
I do not think Trump cares alot about most of the things the RNC or most politicians do.
I do not think he reads polls the same as they – or you or even I do .
I think the only thing he cares about his approval rating is that it is above his rivals – and it is, or will be the moment any of them are actually in the election.
All this trumpocalyspse nonsense is not going to win any of the groups that voted for him.
As president he has been no more difficult and oboxious than he was as candidate.
It is far easier to win as president.
The only question in 2020 will be can he bring his opponent down to his level.
I do not think he is going to have diffiuclty doing so.
OK Dave, I will close this part of our conversation because I have failed to effectively communicate my thoughts and have any respinse to the main pojnt I am making. Out of 120 million or so votes, Trump won because of 150-200k votes in 3-4 states. I think he has effectively turned off enough of those ” anyone but Clinton” weak Trump voters that will turn the next election. Clinton is not running.
Ron;
I do not think I misunderstand you.
I basically agree with what you have stated.
But it is an example of my concept of flawed common sense. It is first order thinking.
It makes many big assumptions:
Lets start with 2016.
It assumes that if any candidate besides Clinton had run against Trump he would have lost.
That is possible, it is not certain.
That is like saying: The eagles beat the steelers, the steelers beet the cowboys, therefore the eagles will beet the cowboys. The odds might favor that, but each contest is unique.
Trump proved in 2016 that he knew how to beat Clinton. It is unlikely he would have done exactly the same things against Warren, Sanders or Biden.
Clinton was an abysmal candidate. The election absolutely would have been different with a different democratic candidate.
But Trump also beat a pack of Republicans who were quite different from Clinton.
I wish he hadn’t, but he did. We can again do a bunch of analysis and claim but for xyz he would not have. – all that means is Trump understands how to make use of the rules.
It does not tell you what would happen if the rules were different.
There is no reason to be certain with different rules that he would not figure out how to make best use of those – even if that is not apparent at the surface.
In 2020 Trump will be the incumbent. One of his worst weaknesses in 2016 was the inability to see him as president, he is just too volatile. Clinton absolutely hands down won the “more presidential bearing” position. That was not enough. I still do not understand how that was not enough. It is extremely rare that we vote for candidates that we think are extremely disruptive.
Usually only when we are very threatened by the status quo.
In 2020 Trump will not have that problem. While he remains volatile, we still see him as president.
He wears those shoes, and he has not ended the world or started a nuclear war or …..
No democrat will wear the shoes of incumbancy. They may not have the same disadvantage Trump had in 2016, But Trump will have flipped one of his worst disadvantages to a strength.
He will be much stronger against better candidates than Clinton.
It seems highly likely he will have a strong economy – something no president has had since Clinton.
While this Trump/Russia nonsense has dominated the past year.
It can not continue. It must either bear fruit or die, and it looks alot like it is dying.
Regardless if it actually produces a unicorn – Trump will not be the candidate in 2020.
There is alot wrong with this tax cut.
I have criticised it repeatedly.
That said it is NOT at all what it has been painted by the left.
That is stupid – starting in January people will see changed in their paycheck.
80% of those earning under 125K will see a cut.
I beleive the average family is seeing a cut of about 2500/yr.
Ad that too a booming economy and the results in 2018 could be VASTLY different.
It is irrelevant whether there will be an increase in 2025. Almost no one will make voting decisions based on that.
The democrats are betting on the green eyed monster of envy – that is the gist of your article.
That is a bad bet.
Political analysis is not my forte. I do not want to claim to have some special reason to be better than the experts. I have been wrong in my political assessments in the past.
I am glad Moore lost, but I expected him to win. The indications are enough republicans stayed home, enough minorities came out to vote and apparently there were bussed in voters, to tip the election. Regardless it was still closer than I expected.
Regardless, we are trying to see where things will be in the future not the present.
Trump has actually had a good year.
Further 2018 looks to be better for him – the economy will grow more, there should be little doubt of short term benefits from this tax cut, there will be paycheck benefits to lots of voters.
And 2018 will be an off year election – favoring republicans.
Against this we have democrats have been fomentting outrage for so long – and losing, there is a very high probability they burn out. Absent a seriously damaging new revelation from Meuller in the next 10 months Trump/Russia outrage will fade.
Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf ?
Thus far the results of this investigation have been far more damaging to democrats than republicans.
Trump is slowly begining to be able to clean house at DOJ/FBI.
It is only the top tier that is politically corrupt. Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal government will come mostly at the expense of die hard demoralized political zealots.
Fanatics are leaving EPA, and STATE in droves. This is a very big deal for the future.
Trump has made a few egregious mistakes int he judiciary, but mostly he has put the overall best crop of judges on the bench we have seen in decades.
This is a huge deal for the future.
These are not perfect judges. Probably there are very few I would actually like. But they are night and day better than what they replace.
Further they are not only better than what Clinton would have done, they are better than any other republican would have done.. About 50% of these appointments are “federalists” – that is about as close as you can get to libertarian in the legal world and not be on the extreme fringes.
These are judges BETTER than Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy., The odds are really good Trump will get to put two more of them on the supreme court by 2020.
Yes, I beleive he will be re-elected in 2020. Not only that but I beleive it will be a landslide.
While the fit is not perfect, the pattern overall resembles Reagan.
Reagan’s approval rating tanked during his first year.
21 USC §§331, 333, 348 & 21 CFR §172.510(a) make it a federal crime to add more myrrh to food than is necessary to impart the intended amount of myrrh-ness to the food.
49 USC §46317 makes it a federal crime for someone to fly into the United States in anything designed to fly through the air, unless they have an airman’s certificate.
New meaning to “Babes In Arms”: http://www.newsweek.com/hunting-licenses-issued-after-minimum-shooting-age-eliminated-wisconsin-725527
And how about those Gun-Relinquishment laws? Sounds anti-libertarian to me.
“an average of 5,790 children receive emergency room treatment for gun-related injuries each year in the United States, and around 21 percent of those injuries are unintentional.”
I am not going to get into a debate about hunting licenses and age requirements. I was hunting wirh my dad at a young age. Spent a number of early mornings freezing my ass off in a duck blind. And that was also when the NRA had gun safety programs in many high schools across the country before the PC police made this a bad thing.
But it would be nice if the news would explain the numbers that they use in stories. Is this 5,800 kids injured due to hunting accidents or due to gang related or criminal related activities in inner cities across the country. How many are due to idiots that purchase handguns and leave them laying on the table for a kid to grab kr take to school?
And I wonder who thinks a baby is going to go hunting. Is this part of their contribution to the support of the family?
dduck, I understand your thinking.Why should we expect young kids to be responsible enough to hunt with an adult today like they have done for years in some states when they cant even drive a car today with out parallel parking assist, lane warning assist, automatic braking to stop and all the other electronics because they dont pay attention.
Just what we need is a kid with a shotgun in one hand and a cell phone in the other walking a field dove hunting!
I would suggest reading Lenore Skenazy on raising kids – as well as lots of the studies that are coming out that basically say the nonsense we see on colleges today is the result of overprotective child rearing.
Life is dangerous – even to kids.
Making it “safer” – when that actually works, and mostly it does not, does nto make it better.
I would prefer that my child was not killed any any of the myriads of possible but unlikely childhood accidents.
I would also prefer they growth up strong, self-reliant, motivated, confident, capable of solving their own problems
These are attributes they do not develop in a world where they are coddled, protected and never in the slightest danger or freedom as children.
I am reading Taleeb’s “anti-fragile” right now.
Living things are just about the only things in existance that are “ant-fragile”.
That is MORE than robust. It means more than capable of surviving.
It means actually growing and thriving as a consequence of stresses.
We know that stress is actually extremely good for humans – as long as it is not continuous or the wrong forms of repetitive.
This is also why we should be far less affraid that robots and machines will take over the world.
Machine are often robust.
They are not “antifragile”
They do not repair themselves, they do not get stronger as a result of the stresses they undergo.
Why do we need a license to excercise a right ?
Do we have “free speach” licenses ?
Do you have to have a license to practice religion ?
Should you have to get a license to excercise your 5th amendment rights ?
Welcome Back To Reality
If you do not klike blocky utilitarian buildings you are free to build what is yours however you please.
I absolutely oppose cronyism. Leaving people – even rich people keep more of what is theirs is not cronyism. The reduction of theft is not immoral. Those who oppose it are immoral.
If stealing is wrong, it is wrong whether you steal from the rich or the poor.
Authoritarian has a meaning. Present actual evidence that Trump is authoritiarian and I will join you in fighting him. Dismembering the work of prior authoritarians is anti-authoritaian.
More left wing nut word delusions. if you can not use words correctly – you muddle your own thought.
I find the Left’s idea of election integrity hilarious. It is criminal to purge dead people and eligible voters from the rolls. But it is OK – even to be encouraged to allow people to vote multiple times, or to have votes cast that we have no clue who really cast them, or whether they were eligible.
The evidence at this point is pretty compelling – Alloyette won New Hampshire not Hassan, and possibly Trump not Clinton. But your idea of integrity is anything that favors the left is OK, no matter how corrupt, while anything that favors the right is not.
We know that in person voter fraud is not merely possible, but quite easy.
We know that things that are easy happen.
We know that voting data shows lots of unusual patters that are not easily explainable by anything but fraud.
We regularly have elections that are won inside the margin for error.
But the left insists on sticking its head in the sand.
I think the presidential election commision like nearly all the government should conduct its business out in the open visible to all. But I do not think that politics or the views of the majority determine the facts, or what is right or wrong.
The left only wants openness in order to bully the results. That is not the rule of law, that is the rule of the mob.
If you do not want to be accused of a soft coup – do not foment won.
The left since election day has been selling garbage, without evidence.
We do not conduct criminal investigations in the hope of finding a crime.
We do not investigagte people because we do not like them.
We do not conduct criminal investigations because we do not like the people we are investigating.
We do not conduct investigations because we are unwilling to accept what actualy happened and demand an alternate reality.
ANY of those represent lawlessness. When you are lowless, you should expect to be accused of fomenting a coup. When you can not follow the rule of law – you should expect to be called lawless. You are not seeking to question to “ruling party”, you are seeking to change the results of an election. It should be self evident by now that you have both failed and were wrong.
If the Russians actually hacked the DNC – itself debatable, If Trump helped them – again no evidence – that would be wrong. Possibly wrong enough to disqualify him as president.
But the claim that “influenced” the outcome is ludicrous. While of course it did, that influence came from the people knowing the TRUTH.
So your real argument is that voters are only allowed to know what you want them to,
and if the press kow tows to the left and does nto bother to find the truth.
And one of the other results of the Mueller investigation is the discovery of how badly the press has failed us for the past 8 years.
Where were the stories that Clinton had bought and paid for the DNC – why did we need WikiLeaks to find out what a Free Press is supposed ot uncover ?
Why did we not know that the Obama administration was letting criminals off the hook and hiding corruption from congress and the people to protect the U1 deal ?
Why did we not know the administration was protecting Hezbolla drug dealers in order to protect the Iranian nuke deal ?
Why did we not know the administration was leaking the where abouts of top terrorists so they could escape because they were affraid of the left win political blowback for killing an american terrorist in syria ?
Why did we not know that Obama gave Russia a much larger role in Syria because it did not have the courage to enforce its own red line ?
Why did we not know that the DOJ/FBI was hunting down any journalist and leaker aware of the Clinton Lynch tarmac meeting and trying to slience them or get them to sign NDA’s ?
Why did we not know that the FBI agents on the Clinton email case have to sing special NDA’s beyond the normal FBI rules or the standard ethical conduct requirements ?
Why did we not know that the lead agent investigating Clinton was politicially committed to getting her elected ?
…..
And the list goes on. There is much that we did not know before the election that would have made it impossible for clinton to get elected.
There is much we did nto know during the Obama administration that we should have.
The only ruling party we seem unable to question – is the democrats.
We have uncovered enough misconduct in the past year to keep DOJ/FBI busy investigating the prior administration for a decade.
If the only way we are going to find the actual truth, is through russian hacking and wikileaks,
Then so be it.
While it is “influencing the election” to reveal the malfeasance of one candidate, if what is revealed is true, it is positive influence.
Your entire argument seems to be that the left is free to keep people in the dark and feed them garbage and that anyone who exposes the truth is evil.
I have no problem with the FBI investigating foreign influence. That is a counter intelligence investigation, it has fairly relaxed rule. It is not an investigation of a crime, and it does nto implicate constitutional rights. It also not only does nto require but can not be conducted by a special council or any other prosecutor. It also has not conflict of interests. You can not have a conflict, until there is a target to a criminal investigation.
If you can cite a specific crime, and provide evidence establishing probable cause that a crime has been committed – you can have a criminal investigation. If you can provide evidence tot eh same standard that a target of theat investigation in in the chain of command of the normal investigative body, AND that can not be remedied by removing that party from any role in the investigation – they you can have a special counsel.
None of that has been met here. What we have is a lawless criminal investigation where no actual crime has even been identified, being investigated by those who are increasingly obviously partisan. There is only one possible purpose of this.
What we are seeing is right out of the cheka. But that should not surprise coming from the left.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/366482-appeals-court-rejects-challenge-to-trump-voter-fraud-panel
A Reminder That tRUMP’S Blubbering is BS
“The (Ir)relevance of the Trump ‘Dossier’
“Much has been made this week of reports that the Clinton campaign paid for the so-called “dossier” about Trump that was compiled by a former British intelligence agent. One important point is sometimes lost in the discussion. The dossier itself played absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election. That assessment, which was released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis.
It’s true that then President-elect Trump was briefed on the allegations in the dossier. This was not, however, because the intelligence community had relied on it in any way, or even made any determination that the information it contained was reliable and accurate. Rather, after considerable thought and discussion, DNI Clapper and the heads of the FBI, CIA and NSA decided that because the dossier was circulating among Members of Congress and the media, it was important to warn the President-elect of its existence. Imagine his anger—which would have been fully justified—if the document had leaked, and he learned that U.S. government agencies knew of it and did not warn him.
The Russian efforts to influence our election are an important crisis for our democracy. The salacious allegations in the “dossier” are a mere sideshow that should not distract from a comprehensive investigation of that crisis.”
https://lawfareblog.com/irrelevance-trump-dossier
Jay;
The problem with your story is that the probability of it being true is low and declining.
First at this point the Dossier is inextricably linked to the clinton campaign and to Russia in ways you have not being able to do with Trump on anything. The dots are fully connected, multiple ways, and there is further evidence that the Natialia meeting with Trump Jr. was orchestrated by Fusion GPS in the hope that Trump would bite.
I have absolutely zero problem with any of the above – meaning it is not and should not be illegal.
It certainly dirty politics, but what would you expect from Clinton. Regardless, it also means you can not get Trump for engaging in similar “dirty politics” – in the even tyou could actully find evidence of such – which you have not.
But the next problem we have is the myriads of connections between the Steele Dossier and all those assorted groups that you claim independently reached the same conclusions.
The only thing we have demonstrating that is “their word” – we are talking about the word of Clapper who lied repeatedly to congress and the american public.
We are talking about the word of Brennan who is complicit in much of Clapper’s garbage.
and who also is increasingly evidently directly or indirectly the source of many of the leaks – leaks that ultimately proved “fake news”
All these sources, plus congress, plus the media have been investigating Trump/Russia purportedly for over 2 years.
If this actual substance that your “authorities” claim to have was credible and real – we would all know it by now. The thesis that these people you are claiming provided an alternative basis besides the Steele dosier requires that other evidence actually exists – besides their assertion that it does and that what they relied on was not the Steele dossier”.
If you would have asked me a year ago whether the FBI/DOJ would have relied on the Steele Dossier to get a warrant – I would not have beleived that.
But in a year of reporters, congressmen from both parties, the FBI, DOJ, left wing groups, and Mueller investigating – we still have nothing.
I am marginally prepared to beleive Mueller runs a tight ship.
I am not prepared to beleive that during a time that congress and the FBI and NSA and CIA have leaked like a seive that something has been found and kept secret.
Further the press has been looking as have left wing groups – and this is multiple Pulizer material if found.
Throughout the year – we have had LOTS of leaked assertions – all have proven false.
Lastly the FBI/DOJ NSA and CIA have been stonewalling congress on anything related to this since the beginning.
When anything manages to get out it provides new evidence of malfeasance and political bias on the part of the Obama administration or DOJ/FBI.
What is increasingly evident is that Congress is being resisted because the material being asked for is damaging to Obama people currently still in government. Thus far that has universally proved true.
Not a single revalation pried fromt he FBI ro DOJ has been harmful to Trump.
It is crystal clear Trump has not directed the FBI/DOJ to stonewall, that they are doing this on their own – also a big big problem.
A year ago I would not have beleived FBI used the Steele dossier to get a warrant.
Today I think it is highly unlikely that they did not.
I no longer beleive that they ever had anything else.
All the article you provide offers is “trust me I am from the government and I am here to help”
I guess you have forgotten the incredible level of distrust that democrats had for the CIA and NSA prior to Obama’s election ?
Or maybe you think that they got a whole lot better after the 2008 election.
While some of the work our intelligence services have done is both important and critical.
History gives us an infinity of reasons NOT to take anything they say on Trust.
And you are offering nothing else – not even that, because up until Trump won the election this was not a story. The russian collusion nonsense increasingly appears to be Peter Strzok’s “insurance policy”. Something cobbled together by all those you are demanding I trust during the election with the expectation they would not have to use it.
In that event – which looks increasingly likely It is almost certain that the Steele Dossier and only the Steele Dossier were used for warrants.
This is an easy enough question to put to rest – provide the warrants to congress.
Jay;
All you have regarding Trump is the Steele dossier.
If it is a “sideshow” – then Mueller must stand down. Because nothing else leads to Trump and nothing else provides the conflict that requires a special council.
But in truth the rest of what you have is no better than the Steele Dossier.
The probability that Russian’s hacked the DNC is very low. Worse democrats ensured that a thorough investigation was not possible.
We do know that DNC was hacked – twice. We also know that if it actually was the Russians they are about 10 times stupider than we have any reason to beleive.
The US does not leave its fingerprints when it hacked Iran or elsewhere.
All nations and most hackers know how to point the finger elsewhere.
The one thing that is most likely true today is that wherever the “evidence” appears to point, that is NOT where a hack came from.
Separately the probability that the wikileaks emails came from either of those hacks is negliable.
The emails were almost certainly leaked not hacked.
If you can not implicate Russia, you certainly can not implicate Trump.
Then we have this social media nonsense.
I am sure that Facebook or others are likely counting my asmith or jbsay accounts in their fake russian hacking accounts. They are pseudonym’s and I most have posted something anti-clinton using them.
The supreme court ruled long ago that anonymous speach is a protected free speach right.
If anonymous speach is a right, there is no means to bar speach from Russia or others because you do not like it without violating the anonymous speach rights of others.
Most of the claims regarding social media are actually not proven. They are a string of low probabilities.
They assume that anonymous accounts are inherently evil, that because some originate in eastern europe all do, that all eastern europeans are pro russia, that all pro-russians are directed by Putin.
And then we have the fact that the intent of the messages was diverse – overall more pro-clinton than pro trump..
So in the end you have nothing.
I will be prepared to beleive Brennand and Clapper when they bring evidence.
Until then “Trust me” does nto cut it at all.
At the moment “trust in govenrment” is near an all time low – less than half of Trump’s approval rating. It has been declining steadily since its last peak in 2000.
So you are pretty much alone in trusting these people.
“All you have regarding Trump is the Steele dossier.
If it is a “sideshow” – then Mueller must stand down. Because nothing else leads to Trump and nothing else provides the conflict that requires a special council.”
I don’t have the Steele Dossier, Mueller, Congress, the public record all have Steele’s Dossier, which never claimed to be 100% accurate.
And your contention that the Mueller investigation is invalid if it doesn’t lead directly to tRUMP is absurd. If his underlings, with or without his knowledge, conspired with foreign entities to get him elected, that’s criminal (some would claim traitorous) conduct. You seriously want to ignore/invalidate that?
If Schlump was the CEO of a company whose top echelon executives he hired were engaging in illegal acts for the betterance of the company, wothoutout his knowledge and they were found out, do you think he would still share responsibility for those acts? If you were a shareholder, wouldn’t you call for his removal as CEO, for ignorance, incompetence, horrible judgement???
Mueller investigation has already found three of tRUMPks hiringlings have broken the law; if it turns out others close to tRUMP, like family members, also broke the law, are you going to Demand he resign? As you undoubtedly would if it was the CEO of a company you owned stock in?
Aparently in your world – “absurd” means something I do not like.
A special counsel is required ONLY when the target of the investigation are directly in the chain of command leading from the FBI through the president and can not be sidestepped.
That is why there should NOT be an SC to investigate Clinton or the Obama mess.
There is no conflict of interests in the chain of command that can not be worked arround.
Arguably the ONLY conflict that can not be worked arround is the president or possibly vice president. Any other conflicts can be recused or firewalled away from any investigation they might be a part of. Trump’s underlings can be investigated perfectly well by DOJ/FBI. Trump is legitimately allowed to direct such an investigation should he choose – unless he too is an ACTUAL target. Your hope/fear that it MIGHT lead to him does not make him a target.
I would note that Pres. Obama publicly exhonerated Clinton during the email investigation.
She was certainly one of his underlings. That is far worse than Trump’s requests regarding Flynn.
The appointment of Mueller as SC was illegal and unconstitutional from the begining.
If you want that type of investigation – Congress must do it.
It is not “absurd” to oppose making the rules up as you go along.
At the bare minimum the rule of law means the same rules for all.
No special “Trump only” approaches.
Make up your mind – what argument are you making ?
Did NSA/CIA/FBI/DOJ have evidence of Trump/Russia collusion that has NEVER been revealed – despite myriads of leaks, and news investigation, congressional investigations, ….
It is increasingly self evident there is no evidence that DOJ/FBI/NSA/CIA had/have that we do not currently know.
There is no allegation we currently no of that would have justified a warrant of anykind, much less a FISA warrant. Yet we know that atleast two FISA warrants were issued – though they have never been produce despite multiple congresstional demands and subpeonas.
If allegations in the Steele Dossier were used to secure FISA warrants – there are MULTIPLE very serious problems.
First its source is political, and its route into DOJ/FBI represents an egregiously improper political connection between law anforcement and a specific candidate to the detriment of the other.
As I noted before Trump/Russia collusion might result in impeachment – but it is not actually illegal or unconstitutional even if you manage to find that unicorn.
But the executive branch conspiring with one candidate and a foreign government to investigate another – that is unconstitutional, corrupt and criminal. That is WORSE THAN WATERGATE.
Second, regardless of the source whatever was used by the FBI/DOJ to get FISA warrants must
meet the requirements of the 4th amendment – as BTW must any of Muellers warrants or subpeonas.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
While the courts have made swiss cheese of the 4th amendment over the past several decades as a consequence of the war on drugs.
It still has meaning. It is generally imposed more rigidly outside the context of drugs, and particularly where not obviously guilty wealthy white people are the targets
An officer is required to provide evidence demonstrating probable cause AND required to swear that evidence is from a reliable source – there is alot of case law on that.
The Steele dossier would not even come close to meeting the criteria for a “reliable source”.
Absent verifying the specific claims from the Steele Dossier used – and we have no evidence those claims were verified – again congress has demanded information as to whether FBI/DOJ sought to verify the Steele Dossier and again FBI/DOJ have been stonewalling.
The evidence does not yet quite reach a standard to convict the assorted DOJ/FBI people involved in this of a crime “beyond a reasonable doubt” – but it is slowly getting there.
It is already well beyond what is necescary to fire these people and to start a criminal investigation of their conduct.
Finally “not yet” in this case is the same as highly likely will.
If evidence existed to echonerate or mitigate this conduct it would have been provided already.
It would have been in the interests of those engaged in misconduct to provide the evidence to justify their actions. The stonewalling makes it more likely that there is more damning evidence, not that there is evidence that will exhonerate.
We do not have private citizens resiting a fishing expedition into their personal lives, we have government employees resisting investigation of their official conduct.
The reasonable inferance is that the more we know the worse it will get.
“If Schlump was the CEO of a company whose top echelon executives he hired were engaging in illegal acts for the betterance of the company, wothoutout his knowledge and they were found out, do you think he would still share responsibility for those acts? If you were a shareholder, wouldn’t you call for his removal as CEO, for ignorance, incompetence, horrible judgement???”
First as a matter of law, that investigation would have to be conducted according to the law – a mere allegation would not be sufficient – you have ASSUMED misconduct merely by alleging it.
That is not surprising as you repeatedly do the same with the Trump/Russia investigation.
But lets assume such evidence exists, and a legitimate investigation is conducted, and underlings are found to have engaged in illegal acts, and the evidence also indicates the CEO was unaware.
1). The CEO would likely resign or be removed by the board or shareholders – by following the corporate constitution or bylaws. If I were a shareholder I would make my own judgement based on the totality of the facts – which would include more than this incident. As an example I would not likely vote to remove a CEO who made the company billions of dollars, when it was found that some of his subordinates were pocketing thousands of dollars in some office supply scam he was entirely unaware of.
2),. Depending on the specific crimes the CEO might actually be legally culpable despite their lack of knowledge – because our federal law on this is entirely F’d up.
3). Removeall for ignornace incompetence and horrible judgement would require evidence that the CEO had demonstrated those. The standard is usually “knew or should have known”. IF it is evident that some illegal acts occurred because the CEO was being willfully blind – then he should be sacked. If the illegal acts are small and quite removed from his oversight – then he is merely embarrased.
We have had myriads of examples of this with various different outcomes.
In Massachusetts a company lost a huge toxic torts case because a handful of employees in a paint shop ignored decades of memos to cease using some toxic chemicals – and specifically because they were prohibited from using them hid their use from the company and disposed of them improperly. It was absolutely established that not only didn;t the CEO know, but almost no one in the company knew. Yet the company was found liable.
I beleive we have a similar situation more recently with Wells Fargo.
It has been pretty well established that the activities of some Wells Fargo staff – opening new accounts without permission for existing clients was confined to a few branches and tied to a single employee and his associates, yet Wells Fargo has taken responsibility for it.
“ mere allegation would not be sufficient – you have ASSUMED misconduct merely by alleging it.”
Two of Schlump’s inner circle hires already plead guilty to lawbreaking.
And if more prove to be shady characters under law (Manafort, Kushner, Trump-Jr) are you going to ask Poo Poo to quit?
A yes or no will suffice
Papadouils is not even close to Trump’s “inner circle” arguably he was not even part of the campaign. He plead guilty to misstatements to the FBI about activities that were perfectly legal.
That will get you absolutely no where.
Flynn is atleast at the fringes of Trump’s inner circle. He too plead guilty to misstatements to the FBI about activities that were perfectly legal.
In otherwords you have nothing.
We have been hearing promises of more for almost two years.
Thus far every single leak story rumor that promised more has been falsified.
There is nothing left but the hope that you will be able to find something.
As I said you NEVER had the basis for an investigation.
You have far LESS now than ever before.
Manafort BTW was Trump’s campaign manager for about a month.
Clinton is a “shady character under the law” – whatever that bizarre construct means.
People come in all forms. Law is supposed to be black and white. That is actually a requirement of the rule of law. We convict people of breaking what are supposed to be black and white bright line laws on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would have prefered neither Trump nor Clinton were elected.
If you demonstrate Trump has done something that constitutes what I feel is a “high crime or misdemeanor” I will ask my representative and senators to have him removed.
You are a million miles from that.
At this moment I have seen enough evidence to convict hillary of violating 18fdr793(f) and even (e).
I have not seen enough regarding Trump to justify an investigation. Certainly not issue a warrant.
With respect to others affiliated with Trump.
If we end up with another raft of these stupid lying to the FBI about innocent conduct garbage – then I am going to be looking for the prosecution of the special prosecutor.
Regardless congress needs to change the law or SCOTUS needs to find it unconstitutional.
It certainly seems to run afoul of the spirit if not the letter of the 4th and 5th amendments.
I ABSOLUTELY oppose any prosecution of anyone for process violations where there is no underlying crime.
One state supreme court has just declared their states asset forfeiture laws unconstitutional for exactly that reasoning.
Lets take your idiotic “obstruction of justice” nonsense.
Do you think that anyone should ever be prosecuted for “obstuction of justice” if there is no underlying crime that has been proven ?
If you try to convict Joe Doe of burglarly and I call up police officers, and judges and …. and say Joe Doe is not guilty and ultimately Joe turns out to have an alibi,
Should you be allowed to prosecute me for what really was “obstruction of injustice ?”
Either you do not seem to grasp that your incredibly expansive conception of law leaves us with a police state – which we already have, just not one that is politically linked, or you want one set of rules for those you loath and another for the rest of us.
You do not seem to grasp that your hatred for Trump has colored your judgement.
It is self evident that you have already convicted him in your mind.
You expert proof to be found – because you beleive he is guilty.
You do not understand that justice works in the exact opposite fashion.
You are lawless.
I do not know Manafort. What little I know I read in the news. From that I do not like him and think it is likely he belongs in jail.
But I do not investigate, charge and convict people – merely because I beleive they belong in jail.
I want probable cause for an investigation and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.
Based on the evidence I have seen Manafort is likely guilty of tax evasion. But he purportedly cleared that with the IRS in 2014. Though from the looks of Mueller’s evidence – there could still be state and local tax evasion charges possible.
Mueller’s actual indictment is based on a legal theory that should get laughed out of court.
You can not launder legally acquired money. No one has claimed Manafort made money illegally.
Regardless, if you want money laundering – you need to charge a crime related to acquiring the laundered money – being openly paid by a foreign leader for election advice is not illegal.
I do not know Kushner or Trump Jr. I have no reason to like or dislike either.
I am concerned because thus far I see no reason at all they should be in jeophardy as a consequence of a politicized criminal investigation merely to satisfy your personal beleif that the must be guilty of something – something you can not even articulate.
Kushner is now part of the government (it is my understanding Trump Jr. is not).
As such he has accepted heightened scrutiny for his actions INSIDE government.
Not for his personal life.
Congress and DOJ/FBI can tear apart the work related activity of any member of government.
They can do so without warrants or probable cause.
Kushner signed on to that – so did Clinton and Abedin and Mill, and Comey, and Strzok and McCabe, and Uhr, and Lynch, and Yates, and Baker, and ……..
And the president can order them NOT too – or too, as he pleases.
“Mueller investigation has already found three of tRUMPks hiringlings have broken the law;”
Bzzt Wrong.
There are several plea bargains to date. Each of these is an after the fact process violation.
Flynn and Papadoulis are guilty of failing to fully disclose to an investigation information that was not evidence of a crime.
This is specifically what is wrong with the Federal code on this and other issues.
If there is no underlying crime, there can be no crime associated with a failure to properly cooperate with the investigation. Otherwise you have a police state.
Beyond that we have the Manafort indictment.
An indictment is not proof of having broken the law.
Further nothing in the Manafort indictment has anything to do with Manafort’s actions as part of the Trump campaign. It is all stuff from years before.
Manafort has a serious “leona Helmsley” problem – he is likely to be convicted simply because he is Manafort. But the allegations in the indictment are pretty much crap.
Meuller alleges Money Laundering – which ALSO requires an underlying Crime.
Those allegations are the bulk of the indictment and likely to crash and burn.
Merely reading the indictment makes it clear that the evidence is of tax evasion, not money laundering But Mueller could not charge tax evasion – because the IRS would not sign on – as they had a prior settlement with Manafort and the statute of limitations had expired.
The other claims is for logan act violations by proxy, and that is just not going to fly.
Manafort seems a scurlous guy who just ought to be in jail.
But we do not jail people because we think they are scurlous. but because we can prove crimes.
Regardless – you have nothing. As of yet, you have not got a signle ALLEGATION of an actual crime – that involves misconduct by the trump campaign during the campaign.
What, you think it isn’t hard work to “try’ and come up with Twainish tweets.
dduck…Jay ..Guys, dont you realize more business is completed on the golf course than many other places?….I think we need to put congress on the courses Monday- Thursday. They could get infrastructure, DACA, immigration reform, border security and a couple other minor things all done and be home by Memorial day to campaign for the next 5 1/2 months.
Will they play on Duffer Donald owned golf course, Ron?
Will they have to pay exorbitant membership fees?
If they play with Poo Poo will they have to let him win?
Jay commented on Making Sense of the Sexual Predator Epidemic.
in response to dduck12:
What, you think it isn’t hard work to “try’ and come up with Twainish tweets.
Will they play on Duffer Donald owned golf course, Ron?
Will they have to pay exorbitant membership fees?
If they play with Poo Poo will they have to let him win?
Jay this was not my comment, but I will answer your question.
1 Who? Trumpsters or Twainsters?
2. Depends on their income class. Millionaire class, pocket change. NY Uber driver, lifetime income.
3. Depends on if they want something or not.
2
They do not have to play at all.
Therefore they do not half to do anything.
More of this left wing nut nonsense equating choice with force.
Dave: “We have alot of very serious economic threats that have built up over the course of the past 20 years, “
Like the deficit.
Do you have a reasonable reationalization for what trump-Republican tax deduction will do to reduce it, let alone keep,If from balloonig further?
The deficit is a long term threat not an immediate on.
It is not going to turn the 2018 or 2020 election.
It is not going to cause a recession – atleast not in the near future.
The debt is a very important problem.
But if you have been listening too me then you already know that as scared as I am about it, it is not the most important problem.
The greatest threat – short term, long term, and otherwise is the size and spending of the government.
That will be the next test for Republicans – and I expect them to do worse on that than the Tax Reform – but still far better than democrats.
I would also note that the Tax Reform is supposed to cost $1T/decade.
Obama increased the deficit by on average $1T/year.
But that is whataboutism.
Just because I think democrats would be far worse – does not mean I have to support republicans.
But I will go further regarding Tax reform.
There are only two ways I see spending cuts:
Absolute necescity,
Voters having more skin int he game and twisting politicians arms.
The GOP tax reform makes those more likely.
Republicans and democrats alike go into upcoming budget talks with the beleif there is a $1T hole in the budget they have to fill. that increases the pressure for cuts.
To be clear I would be advocating for VERY DEEP cuts – even if the deficit was ZERO.
But if the only way I can get democrats to cut spending is to cut taxes – fine.
I would also note that the reason to cut spending is to cut taxes.
Deficits are bad because they are deferred taxes.
Finally regarding the claimed deficit this reform produces – everyone is reading ouija boards.
Talk to me about the deficit after tax reform has been in place a few years.
Then we will know.
There has never been a revenue proedication regarding taxes that has been correct.
http://www.yahoo.com/news/report-uk-government-begs-prince-152217711.html
Harry and Megan needs to tell anyone sticking their nose into their wedding to go suck eggs. Let Trump throw his temper tantrum.
And who want to bet the queen could put him down and the best he could do is wet his pants. Trump is a skunk and no one wants to cross a skunk, except for a rattle snake.
1). Do not presume because the UK government has asked Harry to do something, that Trump has.
2). The English royal familiy is an arm of the state – that is what you sign onto. Ask Diana about that. It comes with the turf. You can get out, but if you stay in, you accept that the needs of England superceed your own.
Put differently Harry is free to invite whoever he wants to his wedding,
Prince Henry of Wales is not.
Yes, I think Trump should stay out of it.
But I have no evidence he has not.
At the same time I have little problem beleiving he wont.
This is between Prince Henry of Wales and the UK government.
Not Trump, not us, not Obama,
I’ve read that Prince Harry and Obama are friendly, and that is why the Obama’s will be invited.
I seriously doubt that Yahoo has inside info that the Queen of England is “begging” her son to invite Donald Trump to his wedding,, especially given that Trump hasn’t even been invited to make a state visit to the UK. I also doubt that the Trump’s care that much one way or another, but, if they do, so what?
I suppose that the fact that a member of the British royal family is marrying an American might have something to do with the idea that the Queen might think that it’s rude not to invite the POTUS, but Obama is close enough, all anyone really cares about is Megan’s dress!
I have absolutely zero interest in getting involved int he etiquette of british royalty and affairs of state.
My remarks were primarily to point out that things involving english heirs to the throne are not quite so simple as – personal preferences regarding wedding guests.
Hell the politics of invitations to my own personal wedding 35 years ago – which I paid for myself, which my mother was not happy about, were tortuous.
I do not envy Harry and Megan. I do not want to be them.
At the same time I have no sympathy for them.
Harry would not be the first english royalty to jump ship for an american and give up royal ambitions.
1% Milk – terrible for drinking, cooking
Starting in january 80% of wage earners will see their witholding taxes reduced.
The average family of 4 will see a 2500/year reduction in taxes.
Is that your idea of the 1% ?
Regardless, I would enthusiastically and fully support a tax bill that imposed a flat tax with no deductions of anykind and completely eliminated business taxes, and balanced the budget.
In fact I would support a constitutional amendment to that effect.
We will not get good fiscally responsible government until the overwhelming majority of voters have “skin in the game” – have to pay for the spending of government.
“We will not get good fiscally responsible government until the overwhelming majority of voters have “skin in the game” – have to pay for the spending of government. ”
And that is the number 1 problem in my estimation. When 40 % of Americans not having no federal income tax liability rising to 50% during times of economic downturns, spending by government is of no interest. Then many of these individuals receive “kid” checks from the Irs.
Progressives will point out that this percentage declines substantially when the payroll tax is included, but due to complete government incompetence, even this does not cover the programs they were created to fund.
Balancing the budget is a political football. Deficit hawks are a figment of our imagination. They are deficit sparrows in both parties and come out only when the food for easy oicking is available, like entitlement spending increases or tax cuts. When it is not a political advantage to bring up the debt, no kne mentions it or the wasteful spending other than Rand Paul.
“Deficit sparrows” I love it.
The GOP never stopped harping on the deficit during the 8 years of Obama’s presidency, and now, all of a sudden, the Democrats are finding it a terrible problem.
Deficits are A problem – a large problem among many problems.
They are not THE problem
Spending is a problem – even without a deficit. We know that government spending reduces the rate of increase of standard of living.
Taxes are also a problem – and the Republican fix is good – but not great.
Taxes are also a less serious problem than spending.
I would strongly suggest John B. Taylor’s book “first principles”
http://web.stanford.edu/~johntayl/first-principles/first-principles.htm
Taylor is the creator of the famous “Taylor rule” that is a benchmark for federal reserve rates.
From the late 70’s through to 98 – the longest period of US sustained prosperity, it was scrupulously followed. Starting in 1998 Greenspan started deviating and the result was a series of bubbles – the tech bubble the asian bubble and finally the housing bubble. and the financial crisis.
I do not 100% agree with Taylor, but he is still one of the best economists currently living.
Hopefully he will receive a nobel in the future. He and Robert Barro should be high on the nobel committee lists.
Finding the right path to prosperity and avoiding disaster is difficutl and multifaceted.
The absolutely most important issue is growth. Growth near 5% would make every single problem we have much more manageable – without any other change.
There are many paths to growth
Cutting regulations increases growth. The estimated yearly economic cost of excessive regulation today is estimated at $1.4T – that is 5-10% of the economy.
BTW there were myriads of economic studies on the negative impact of regulation after FDR and they were so damning that there was no serious effort to revive the regulatory state until Nixon. Had we merely maintained regulation were it was at the end of the reagan administration the economy would be double its current size – we would ALL be twice as well off.
Do you actually care if the wealthy are twice as well off – if you are two ?
Spending negatively impacts growth at a rate of 1% in growth for every 10% of GDP government spends
Deficits are not inherently harmful – but high levels of debt are.
The impact of taxes is often overstated by conservatives – that said taxes on capital and investment do twice as much economic harm as the revenue they raise.
Inflation was is currently low is another serious negative influence on growth.
I would have prefered that Republicans cut spending first.
But I am happier than expected with what Trump and republicans have done.
We need more – much more. But it is a start.
Stating The Obvious
“A former Watergate prosecutor said Tuesday that President Trump’s new attacks on the FBI could amount to obstruction of justice.
“It is also a possible obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, and it’s obstructing justice by saying to agents, ‘you better not dig too deep, you better not find anything because I will attack you,'” Jill Wine-Banks said during a segment on MSNBC.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/366546-ex-watergate-prosecutor-trump-fbi-attacks-may-amount-to-obstruction
And he would be wrong – otherwise Jefferson would have been impeached and jailed as would Obama.
This is this nonsensical left wing nut argument that somehow acts that would be otherwise perfectly legal become illegal if we pretend you have evil intent.
You can not make a legal act illegal through presumed bad intentions.
ALL the powers of the executive branch are fully vested in the president – read the constitution.
Nixon (and Clinton) obstructed justice by actions that were outside the executive branch.
Nixon arranged to pay hush money to the watergate burglars,
Clinton used AK state troopers to facilitate his liaisons.
There is no instance ever of a prosecutor – much less president, being charged with obstruction of justice for actions consistent with their job.
This is more of the left manufacturing garbage. If this were True Comey could be charged with obstruction for failing to recommend Clinton’s indictment, or Strzok for toning down Comey’s remarks. Or Obama for publicly stating Clinton’s handling of her email was not a crime.
At the very least if you are going to push these ludicrously stupid claims – you should atleast not apply them incredibly hypocritically. i.e. you should be prepared to hold democrats to the same standards.
Jay, in order to be charged with obstruction of justice, you have to, you know, actually obstruct justice.
So, your Ms. Wine-Banks clearly has lost her edge since the Watergate days… a touch of senility, perhaps? Or maybe she just doesn’t understand Trump’s tweets, since he hasn’t actually threatened anyone.
On the other hand, the FBI is clearly out of control, and the DOJ not far behind. This is what happens when the law enforcement bureaucracy takes sides in an election, tries to influence the outcome, and then tries to cover up its treachery.
As the old Watergate era saying goes, “it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.”
Time will tell
Just who has obstructed and who has not…
Absent some evidence of a crime that has not even been alleged – time has already told.
It is not obstruction of Justice for the president to direct the DOJ or FBI with respect to prosecutions. Jefferson firmly established that 200 years ago.
It is not obstruction of Justice for the President to make remarks regarding the merits of an ongoing prosecution – or Obama would have been impeached.
If you want Trump or anyone else on Obstruction of justice – you need an act that has not even been alleged yet regarding an investigation into an actual crime.
I would note that since Mueller has not actually be charged with investigating a specific crime, and since he has therefore not asked permission to broaden his investigation into other specific crimes – it is not therefore possible to obstruct him.
There still has to be an underlying Crime.
I think the “theory” now is going. Trump asked (not ordered) Comey to give Flynn a break.
Flynn inarticularly represented his legal conversation with Sislyak to an FBI agent with an overtly expressed axe to grid regarding Trump, who was sent to him under false pretenses by another politicaly tainted FBI assistant director, who was nto only tied to Clinton’s campaign, but there is evidence plotted to use his power in the FBI to prevent Trump’s election.
So as best I can tell Trump did not obstruct criminals at the FBI intent on abuse of power and criminal conspiracy.
Regardless, Flynn’s misstatements to Strzok seem to me more of a civic duty than a crime.
I would further ask some other questions:
Why were McCabe and Strzok investigating Flynn ?
I do not know what the Formal FBI documentation is, but the FBI does nto investigate whatever and whoever they please.
If Flynn was a target – then there must be a file demonstrating that an actual investigation was opened and what the basis for that investigation was.
BTW the “lyning about the converstation with Sislyak does nto fly.
That presumes they were investigating Sislyak – which is reasonable.
But then there is no justification for interviewing Flynn – you do not need to interview someone about a conversation that you already have from a wiretap. You do not do that if you are investigating Kislyak. You do that if you are investigating and trying to entrap Flynn.
Too many people do not seem to understand that absent a pre-existing basis for investigating Flynn – i.e. unless McCabe and Strzok can point to an open investigation of Flynn at the time they interviewed him – then THEY are the criminals, not Flynn.
Acting under color of the law – outside of a legitimate law enforcement action is a CRIME.
As I keep trying to say – which Jay and others do not grasp.
If law enforcement is not investigating an actual crime – they are acting lawlessly.
We do not send the gestapo knocking on peoples doors because we don’t like them.
Or because the wrong person won the election.
The FBI/DOJ is not allowed to have “insurance” in the event the wrong person wins the election.
More than a year later – we have nothing on Trump, and a growing body of evidence of widespread criminal misconduct withing the Obama administration.
Trump’s continued support in a community that has voted democratic 147 straight times before going for Trump
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/12/27/in_the_heart_of_trump_country_his_bases_faith_is_unshaken_135859.html
Oh, God no! Trump is clearly a Putin puppet – he is supplying arms to Putin’s enemies!
How Dare he!. It must be a false flag operation.
Clearly Trump and Putin are conspiring to arm Putin’s enemies!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-ukraine-20171226-story.html
This assessment leans further left than mine and there are several points I disagree with – the BAT is a BAD idea. And I think the growth estimates are low.
Regardless, the author notes that the projections used to “score” the reform are pessimistic
That the net effect of reform will be positive – just not as positive as it could have been.
Aside from the BAT – I mostly agree – reduce deductions, flatten taxes, reduce business taxes, simplify, simplify, simplfy.
https://economics21.org/html/what-tax-reform-will-bring-2768.html
There is much interesting in this article. but I would note one thing towards the begining.
International relations is anarchy.
More accurately the relationship of the nations of the world to each other is a functional anarcho-capitalist system. It always has been, and I expect that it is near certain to remain so.
International law – to the extent it exits – is voluntary.
I am not advocating for anarcho-capitalism. I am merely noting that it exists, and despite being sometimes volatile it is sustainable. Essentially non-governance is the most enduring form of government.
Libertarians advocate for some form of minarchy. I want more government and Anarcho-capitolism. Though not much more. Ron will tolerate substantially more than I, but less than we have.
We know what happens as we move towards ever greater socialism.
We also know where we are and where the end point of anarcho-capitolism would lead.
Unlike socialism which fails more as it increases,
Increases in liberty MIGHT result in greater volatility, but they are also stable and sustainable.
Libertarianism is Neither utopian nor dystopian. It is merely better than the alternatives.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/the-death-rattle-of-obamas-foreign-policy-record-susan-rice/
This is what too many of you sound like.
A 6 min freindly interview of a clinton supporter and she can not name any position of Clinton’s
At the same time she is sure she opposes Sarah Palin but does not know why ?
Any you are bemoaning the purported lack of knowledge and intelligence of Trump voters ?
https://chappy.i.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmWGGCbRdHZawC62e7pHZeanoKNfUHBcxWpaLAouUWDaxo
Dave, I will be fair and balanced on this reply. This women appears to be under 40. My belief is a huge percent of voters under 40 in the primaries in both parties are just like this woman. Thats why we end up with Clinton/Trump. Then in the general, a large percent are like this. Voting because ” he/she is a democrat/ republican”.
To bad we dont have a ten question test people have to pass while waiting in line to vote
“what are 5 things X and Y support.” Those not answering correctly are blocked from voting
What is wrong with “the left” as seen from someone with a brain on “the left”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/21/mark-lilla-identity-politics-liberals?CMP=share_btn_tw
A libertarian reviews Trump/2017
https://www.aier.org/blog/year-ends-tax-cuts-and-deregulation
Hmm, Thank you jay – maybe I should be watching Fox more.
I do not know who this is – it is certainly not one of Fox’s white males – Hanity or OReilly,
regardless, it is pretty damn Libertarian. And Obama comes off horribly.
LEFT: “Cops are racist! Black Lives Matter! F–k the police!”
TRUMP: {{ criticizes FBI }}
LEFT: “He’s undermining the pillars of democracy!”
“TRUMP: {{ criticizes FBI }}”
AL CAPONE: “I got nothing against the honest cop on the beat. You just have them transferred someplace where they can’t do you any harm. ”
Jay;
Two things are pretty clear about the upper tiers of the DOJ and FBI – likely all of government.
They are self serving, rather than serving the public or the president
To the extent that they lean – they lean left.
Whether you like it or not this is bad for the country.
While slightly overt – this is the “deep state”.
Whether you like it or not our government is not structured such that the executive is empowered independently of the president.
Comey references the FBI’s “sacred” independence – that is mythical.
Yes, J Edgar was pretty good at blackmailing presidents, but that does not create actual legal independence.
All the power of the executive resides in the president – and with that power comes responsibility.
If you actually want this independent executive – AGAIN change the constitution.
I actually beleive we need some revisions on checks and balances.
I am not sure how to do it because today the incentives are for each branch of government to NOT investigate each other. I want the opposite.
I want the executive investigating the judiciary and the legislature. I want the legislature investigating the judiciary and the executive, and I want the judiciary investigating the executive and legislature. I also want the feds investigating the states.
I want all of these “public corruption” bodies to be incentivized to find corruption elsewhere.
I think some form of that is what Madison envisioned in Federalist 51, but I do not know how to do that.
Though I would make clear – their role is to investigate public corruption – not private lawlessness.
That is important because there is a serious difference.
Individuals in their private life are entitled to the presumption of privacy. I do not want to give government the tiniest bit of additional power to investigate peoples private lives.
What was going on under Obama is unconscienable to me.
And although it was not so political under Bush (or Clinton) I know it did nto start with Obama.
Carpenter is creating a bit of a dilema for the courts. They are directly confronting the flaws in the prior decisions allowing government to use third party data. SCOTUS already ruled that government can not GPS track someone without a warrant. But the third party exceptions allow government to warrantlessly track you using your phone. It is becoming self evident that there is no privacy if giovernment can obtain anythign they want from 3rd parties.
Back to my point. If you choose a governmnent position, your conduct in that position is not protected or private. And we should be putting it under a microscope.
I want those working for government – right up to the president and senators, to understand they can not use the power of government in secret.
This is where the left constantly gets things wrong.
I fully support transparency in government. The left thinks that means forcing PRIVATE people to tell us what they contribute to politicians
BZZT wrong.
That means forcing those in government to be as open as possible about everything they do.
It is much harder for government to act if it is under the glare of a spotlight all the time.
“To the extent that they lean – they lean left.”
Left of you, you mean.
Which is still right of center.
More of your Argument By Assertion…
Apparently simple math is not your Forte.
AGAIN Democrats make up a bit more than 1/4 of the population.
That is the LEFT quarter.
There is not more than 1% of the population to the LEFT of democrats.
There are virtually no actually moderate democrats left.
All there are is democrats at the left quarter of the political spectrum – with about 1/2 of democrats in the left 1/8 of the politcal spectrum.
The same it also true about republicans on the right.
In all the above, my leanings did not come up and are not relevent.
Democrats make up the left quarter of the political spectrum whether I am a communist or a Nazi.
Close to a majority of people are indepentent – unaffiliated. They are not democrats or republicans.
They make up the center.
a plurality of those tend (but not universally) to vote republican.
Libertarians as an example tend to split 60/40 republican – but may shift one way ot the other depending on candidates.
Maybe the fact that Democrats have used FISA to target republicans will allow us to finally kill this monster.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2017/12/27/whats-to-come-as-government-surveillance-sunsets-with-2017/#523523e92386
More Libertarian perspectives on 2017
http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/28/3-things-to-like-about-2017
But not bloviating. 🙂
New York Times on Regulation
It is certainly speculative and very subjective to say, but I’m going to say that Trump is turning out to be the worse president we have ever had in U.S. history, but most likely, in my opinion, will be less harmful than Hillary would have been. The closest comparable thing to a what a Hillary presidency would have been, is likely what Bill Clinton’s presidency was only she would have been 3X or more of a war hawk than Bill. Bill’s presidency really wasn’t all that bad, actually good to a degree, but he ran the military ragged with like about 15 or more different deployments (depending on what you call a deployment), and with his over-use of the military he sure as hell did not overfund the military. Rational, intelligent, tyrants of this world are not going to risk messing with a rash “I gotta be the Alpha Male” president like the Donald. Insane or fanatical malevolent people are going to do what they do regardless of what type of president we have. Trump, despite or perhaps because of, all his bluster, has not had to use the military yet. He has caused much damage to the prestige of the USA and the image of the POTUS position, he has caused enormous chaos in government bureaucracy and many unnecessary conflicts among different government agencies, but he has not created a steady stream of body bags that I am convinced we would be having right now had we a president that would have showed the world that she was not afraid to deploy troops into conflict just because she was a girl.
We all understand each other well enough, I don’t even think I need to put my name to this for you to know who wrote this.
Anon: I fully agree with your tRUMP assessment.
But it’s impossible to say what Hillary would have done, per your going to war assertion.
Who would she have used military force against? North Korea?
And “Rational, intelligent, tyrants of this world are not going to risk messing with a rash “I gotta be the Alpha Male” president like the Donald.” should hold even stronger with Clinton, given your assertion that she’s willing to use military force at the slightest provocation.
Jay, In my opinion you made an excellent point. Just because one is a ruthless dictator, doesn’t mean one would not research or profile potential opponents. Thus, in this alternate scenario where Hillary was president, they may just as well conclude she would be way too dangerous to tangle with. That being said, Hillary would have been liable to proactively pull the trigger anywhere, the Spratly Islands, the Assad regime, Mali, Mozambique, South Sudan, . There are any number of places she could have sent the same kind of “aid” she gave the people of Libya. I doubt she would have unilaterally struck North Korea, I think she would pick a much smaller target to show her muscle, although tangling in the Spratly Islands would essentially be dancing with China, who knows what could happen there. No, I think the most likely play she might have made would have been sending in “peace keepers” somewhere that would continue to escalate into a full scale conflict, maybe like Yemen or Myanmar.
Mike Hatcher
I sort of agree with your “results”, but not the assessment that gets you there.
There is a difference between perceived danger and reality.
Trump is perceived by foreign leaders – particularly major threats as more dangerous than Clinton.
Regardless of what the left may say – I do not think Putin would risk crossing Trump in the way he would Clinton.
But I think Trump is LESS likely to get into tiny squables – such as Libya.
Clinton NEEDS to prove she has big balls and would have been engaged in small uses of force all over the place.
That is more dangerous – because it risks dragging us into big conflicts.
Clinton setup and botched the ukrainian coup. The predictable result of that was Russian intervention in Crimea – which set Clinton back on her heals.
Putin won that exchange, because Clinton/Obama could not directly engage Russia.
Trump never would have fomented the coup, BUT at the same time Putin never would have dared unilaterally invade Crimea under Trump.
I think China and North Korea are far more concerned about Trump, then they would be about Clinton.
I think places like Nigeria, and Yemen and …. have more to fear from Clinton that Trump.
Trump will use the US military sparingly where actual US interests are threatened.
Clinton would use it wherever she thinks it makes her look strong.
I think both the Ukrainian coup and the Libya mess were deliberate efforts on Clinton’s part to create the foreign policy credibility that she wanted for her presidential run. Clinton could have had any office in the Obama administration – including vice president.
She picked sec state deliberately. And she botched it – on her own.
I think Obama repeatedly saved her bacon – not because he likes her, but because of exactly what is happening – without Clinton as his successor he is being rapidly dismantled.
Obama ultimately found himself in bed with Clinton whether he liked it or not.
Further Obama never had any foreign policy experience and has proven completely inept at it.
We are definitely deep in the realm of speculation.
I am just trying to be clear that disagreement on this issue does not imply somekind of judgement.
It is possible to make a good guess on a future economy based on policy choices.
It is not possible to make a good guess as to how other foreign governments would react to Clinton vs. Trump.
Unpredictable is harder for other nations to deal with than forceful – and Trump capitalises on that.
Further I think he very agressively plays good cop/bad cop and that strategy works even when you know it is being used on you.
Clinton is I think more prone to use force, but I also think she is more prone to indecisiveness and to second guessing herself. That is not good.
She is also liek Obama far more likely to make decisions based on politics rather than national interests, and less likely to push decision making down to subordinates.
What is increasing obvious – both as a result of Benghazi and new revalations regarding Hezbolla and Iran, is the Obama made even minor decisions from the whitehouse and that he delayed
and that did not work out well.
I think Clinton would have been much the same.
If we can trust the press Trump has spats with his subordinates.
At the same time he has selected competent people and he mostly stands behind them and lets them do their jobs.
I am highly suspicious that many of the “spats” between Trump and subordinates are “orchestrated”. As an example I suspect Tillerson is Trump’s good cop on foreign policy.
I learned a long time ago – never go into a negotiation unless the person you are negotiating with has the same power to make a deal as you do.
Tillerson can negotiate the best deal he can get, and then Trump can say – that is not enough,
and Tillerson can go back and say Sorry but Trump wants more.
This is a common tactic and incredibly effective.
People pop poo Trump’s negotiating skills – because from the outside it all looks childish – and sometimes it is. But regardless of how childish it might appear – he is effective and successful.
Mike, we disagree on Hillery’s propensity for military response.
I see her ‘aggressive’ tendencies as average – a nuanced hawk at times, but also restrained in using force – both as a Senator and as Sec Of State. Yeah, she wanted to kick Assad’s ass (I did too, didn’t you?) and she authorized the Seal raid that took out Bin Laden (I was fine with that too), but she has opposed uses of force that she believed were a bad idea (When China became aggressive in the South China Sea, she didnt resort to military threat, but looked to a regional diplomatic approach; and fighting ISIS, She stuck with Obama’s template for limited of military force and the use of armed drones.).
More importantly, I’m certain she was far more qualified, savvy, and temperamentally suited to be Commander In Chief than the YUTZ who was elected. I’d feel much safer if she was president. Her understanding and knowledge of the military was frequently noted during the election, by people with genuine military experience. Here’s one observation, describing her as Sec Of State as “by far, the best-prepared senior participant in meetings and having read all the memos or briefing books that were sent as preparatory material. They relayed that Clinton has an intimate understanding of military doctrine, Pentagon acronyms, and military planning principles and was not afraid to press senior commanders to clarify the “courses of action” and the intended “end state” of any given military intervention.”
I wasn’t a Hillary supporter until #PresidentPooPoo became the Republican candidate. I wanted a moderate elected – to counteract the PC madness. But tRUMP is a far greater MADNESS to contend with. Hillary would have been bettter for the nation, long haul.
I wanted to kick Sadam’s ass, Gadaffi’s, Assad’s, Putin’s …..
Wanting to do something is not enough to justify the use of force to do so.
When clinton wants to “kick someone’s ass” she does.
We were justified in destroying the taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.
We should have done so and left.
Nation building is not our forte, or our job.
We were not justified in going into Iraq.
I was very trepedatious at the time.
I briefly and tepidly supported doing so – that was a mistake.
Get that you all – I was WRONG about something.
At the same time I absolutely NEVER bought Bushes “premptive war doctrine” that is total crap.
I badly want to “do something” with respect to NK.
But we may not act – except as a response to NK.
I have zero problems shooting down NK rockets once they leave NK airspace.
Further if NK launches an ICBM that targets any other nation, that is an act of war.
But they can test to their hearts content and we can do nothing but bitch.
You may not use force without justification, and aside from in response to force, there are few justifications.
I would further note – you can not threaten the use of force – unless you are prepared to go through with the threat.
Clinton threatened repeatedly in the balkans and then backed down – that cost many lives.
He did the same in Somalia, and danced arround that in Rwanda.
Obama did the same throughout the mideast – with moving red lines.
Trump is less non-interventionist than I am, but he is pretty non-interventionist.
He has threatened the crap out of NK – but the threats are true threats.
He has not threatened to actually use force – unless NK does so first.
Regardless, thus far Trump has not actually threatened much.
ut he has acted. While Obama threatened alot and did not act much.
Trump is full of bluster – but his few threats are something most of us can get behind.
Or do you think that a nuclear attack by North Korea should not be confronted with rainy fire and brimstone on NK ?
More Qualified 😕 Really ?
So you think an absolutely abysmal Sec. State is a better choice than pretty much anyone ?
Lets start with her egging on the disaterous coup in the Ukraine that resulted in Russia annexing Crimea ?
Is that your idea of competent ?
I have no idea what would have happened had we not intervened in Libya – but it is hard to imagine it being worse.
There is growing evidence that our intervention in Syria – if not creating ISIS dramatically strengthened them.
Then we have the tons of money she has taken from Arab Princes, Affrican distators, and Russian Oligarchs.
This is your idea of more competent ?
I am sorry I am very hard pressed to think of anyone LESS competent in Foreign policy than Hillary Clinton.
Had she remained senator until 2016 she would have been far more likely to get elected.
She fouled her own nest – no one else made her fail.
Jay;
I have spent my life in two fields – architecture and computer software.
Both atleast as I have been involved required the same critical skill.
The ability to rapidly and accurately learn alot in a short time about things you know little or nothing about.
When a Building is being built – the architect is near god. By convention and often by law, they are responsible for nearly everything. If the site has rock – it is the architect, if it is a wetlands, if the concrete is bad, if the structure is inaddequate if the building is not safe enough or accessible enough. IF a storm damages the building under construction, if the engineer and the contractor disagree on something, if the owner and contractor disagree. If there is a problem getting permits.
If, If, If
Any problem of any kind that comes up from begining to end – the architect is nearly always accountable and always part of the answer.
A real principle project architect practicing for years, must be able to learn everything from the biology of wetlands, to the differences between Y and W 3 phase power, to the hyraulics of water tables to the use of infrared detectors to find roof leaks to the way that mapple expands in a gym floor to …..
As an embedded software consultant I get hired for exactly those skills.
I am rarely “employed” the area I choose to live is just not a hotbed of embedded software development. When I am hired it is pretty much always because the people with jobs in the company hiring me have already failed.
It is extremely rare that I see the same problem twice. My clients are not hiring someone who has the answers, but hiring someone with a proven track record of finding the answers – even if I know nothing of their work at the outset.
I have worked on encryption/decrption systems that are in FBI and NSA, I have worked on nuclear radiation detectors for Lawrence Livermoore. I have worked on the military systems in AEGIS. I have worked on JTTR’s I have worked on Predators, on Power systems for HumVee’s, on Neural Nets, on systems for decrypting GSM in real time.
In the past year I have worked on GPS tracking and long range wireless, Medical centrifuges, a foot mouse for musicians – that won some awards, I am currently working on projects that require me to learn about exactly how transistors are layed out in silicon, and I have found myself cracking open books on numerical methods and number theory that had been gathering dust since the 70’s.
The field with the next highest requirement for learning just about anything – is managing a business. The bigger, the more diverse, the more complex, the more learning is necescary.
You seem to think that Trump is successful by accident. Absolutely the is luck – good and bad in business, but luck is not sufficient. Business is not the lottery – you can do everything right and fail. You can make a few mistakes and succeed. But you can not succeed sustainably on only luck. You must have incredible skills and unbeleivable ability to learn rapidly.
Mark Cuban keeps coming up here. Bring him on. I know very little about him – except that he has been successful in many domains – like Trump. That is enough.
Conversely Hillary has been a failure in many domains.
I don’t give a crap that she can learn acronyms. I don’t care that she purportedly has a grasp of military doctrine. There is only one military doctrine that a president needs to know
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ffiles.ctctcdn.com%2F766c6672201%2F1d6fcf47-ce1e-4b9e-b14e-0b05aa613e5f.png&f=1
Do not start a fight you are not willing to do what it takes to win.
Related is
“WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE”
Which means if you are at war – you have almost certainly already failed badly.
Clinton is completely clueless of both of these.
Of course she has studied all the things you say she has.
Because she views the military as a tool – a very common left perspective, unfortunately not absent on the right either.
The last person I want as commander in chief is Hillary Clinton.
She may have learned the minutia of the military.
She is clueless as to the purpose of the military.
The military is not a tool. It is the most naked use of force their is.
It is man at very near our worst.
The US has been working since the late 50’s to perfect the art of antiseptic war.
Today we can kill people from 10,000 miles away.
Our ability to wage war against others – without getting dirty is absolutely incredible.
But it distracts from the most critical facet – war is failure.
If we are at war – then we failed at peace.
Because the left does not understand the nature and immorality of the use of force and the constraints on its just use, it is clueless about its use.
Force is not Just another tool.
Jay, I read the link you provided, albeit I did not scrutinize it too heavily, it seems to make the case that she is hawkish. I looked for the “nuanced” to which you spoke, and the article I believe used the word “restrained”, but in my opinion, the article did not support either. They referenced that she disagreed about some drone strikes with Obama, but if I read it correctly, they were debating about something that happened years prior, and she was Monday morning quarterbacking, essentially only fussing about too much collateral damage. Pretty easy to say that after the fact, they should have been more careful, just political blather. I have a link too, a New York Times article (so I concede the slant of the source) that argues that Hillary is\was more hawkish than either Trump or Cruz. I will cut and past a portion since it is a pay site for those that can’t access it for free.
Mike Hatcher
Jay,
I do respect your view on this issue. The only hypothetical alternate reality I’m sure of is that had the Seahawks handed Lynch the ball at the 1 yard line in Superbowl 49, he would have scored a touchdown. All the other “what ifs’ in history are extremely speculative. I am also weary of loading and scrolling 1500 comments on this thread (the only way I can write from my work computer). So I will not be answering any further responses you have on this line, but I will be reading what you say if you comment further. I believe, as the article suggests, that there wasn’t a more hawkish warmonger in either the Republicans or the Democrats, than Hillary was.
“Clinton’s foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone — grounded in cold realism about human nature and what one aide calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.” It set her apart from her rival-turned-boss, Barack Obama, who avoided military entanglements and tried to reconcile Americans to a world in which the United States was no longer the undisputed hegemon. And it will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election. For all their bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.”
Amerian exceptionalism is not about beating other into submission.
It is about
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Freedom – liberty. the rights of individuals.
Best and Worst are hard.
I think Carter was an excellent President – in many ways similar to Trump.
Though obviously not in personality.
He was the most deregulatory president in US history.
But Carter mishandled the Iran hostage crisis and though he actually handled the oil crisis well he mishandled messaging it. His Malaise speach was a disaster. While I think actions matter far more than words, the Malaise speech helped cost him the election.
Reagan gets credit for many of the positive changes Carter put into place.
Clinton was poor on foreign policy but excellent on social and economic matters.
Obama was “presidential” – something Trump is absolutely NOT.
But in actions rather than words he is near the bottom of the list.
Trump is possibly the most unpresidential, undignified president we have ever had.
But in terms of actual actions he has been very very good. I would strongly suggest reading the Jeffrey Tucker article I posted.
Tucker is a pretty radical libertarain, more so than I am. He was anti-trump in the election.
I would not call him pro-trump now, but his assessment matches mines.
Trump is nowhere near what Libertarians want or hope for, but in one year he has done more right than any prior president, and of all the things he campaigned on that were horribly wrong – he has done very little.
I can live with Trump’s endless war on the press – frankly they deserve each other.
Obama was interviewed on BBC recently bemoaning that we are not back in the days of 3 networks with Trusted anchors telling us how it is. That this free wheeling internet is too hard on us and destructive of polity.
I agree – but I am not nostalgic as he is. What we had was WRONG. It made us sheep.
We are the most diverse nations on earth – that is our greatest strength – that requires room for freedom and individualism, and that is what american exceptionalism is.
The internet is forcing us to rediscover what it means to be free.
Freedom is not antiseptic, it involves disagreement. And government is NOT the nanny we should depend on to resolve our differences.
If your neighbor does not mow your law to your liking or paints his home a color you do not like – we do not need a law for that. Talk to your neighbor, and if that does not work – ;earn to live with their freedom or move.
Regardless, I do not think Hillary is Bill plus Military Macho. Hillary was behind Clinton’s failed attempt at universal heatlhcare. Hillary was going to be 4-8 more years of Obama – except no one would have been reluctant to dig into her scandals.
I think it is likely – far more likely than Trump that she would have been impeached.
She is incapable of conforming to law or any of the norms that bind the rest of us.
I know most think Trump is a crook – these are people who are clueless about the fact that business requires Trust. I think that Trump/Clinton are the perfect example of the difference between business and government.
Trump must be a crook because he succeeds – so too many beleive.
Success in business requires being hard nosed and relentless, but it also requires trust.
Trust is not – whatever happens I will protect you. It is simply I will live up to the letter of my agreements, and will expect you to do the same.
Clinton is the “laws are made for other people” and “trust me – I am lying and you know it, but I will still feel your pain when things go to hell”. The interview of the Hillary supporter I posted I think perfectly captures those who support Clinton and those who supported Obama.
They are enthusiatic supporters – Clinton and Obama are the clear “good guys” the ones with the white hats. Yet, they are clueless as to what Clinton’s positions are – or anyone else.
Good/bad are just labels for my tribe/your tribe.
Mike –
Check out James Buchanan, Zachary Pierce, Herbert Hoover, and Warren Harding before you go awarding any “worst president” trophies 😉……. Maybe even Barack Obama, who may move up the list if it turns out that he allowed Hezbollah to become the premier cocaine trafficking ring in the US, in order to get the Iran nuclear deal. 🏆
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/
Priscilla, nothing will come of this investigation just as nothing comes of any investigation. People can die due to overdoses of illegal drugs, police and DEA agents can die enforcing laws in states and along the border, millions can change hands illegally, kids can get hooked on drugs at a young age and nothing will happen. They can find numerious actions where the government created an environment that promoted the above listed actions and noting will happen. Only those at the bottom of the food chain selling on the streets will ever get arrested and convicted.
Thats the way it is in America. Live with it and dont worry, just try to keep your immediate family safe. No one cares that is in a position that can really change the landscape of organized crime and promotes organized crime when it benefits them or party.
Is it true Hillary is descended form Norway’s Lagertha. Now there was a tough woman.
Back to Ricks original comment. This one has flown under the radar here and many other places. Has so many occurred it is “just old news” and we are moving on?
http://www.avclub.com/pbs-suspends-tavis-smiley-over-sexual-misconduct-allega-1821272958
Lots of coverage on Twitter for a while
(It took me three tries to post this)
Thanks Jay. Tried Twitter, found it a waste of time. Guess I am too uninterested to get into all the hashtag crap. And Facebook gives me enough negative ignorant comments to read that takes care of that need. I guess I was out to lunch when this happened as I had not heard anything until yesterday that this occurred.
Whatever floats your boat
Ron,
Yes, back to the actual article topic of discussion. The Tavis Smiley case may illustrate another problem in our society with regards to slander and libel tied to economics. To borrow a page from Dave, we are not entitled to a job, an employer should be free to let go of someone that might tarnish the employer’s image regardless as to if the allegations against that employee are true or not. In an “ideal world” the employee who loses their income over false/slanderous allegations should be able to economically be made whole by a successful lawsuit against the slanderer. However, in reality, even if one were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the slanderer’s statements were completely false, there is a good chance one may not be able to collect on the slanderer even if you win a judgment. Too many people are ‘judgment proof” lacking assets or even lacking good credit to be able to ruin it with a judgment. I say this not having any knowledge as to the credibility of the charges against Tavis. If I was ever forced to guess if an accusation of misconduct against a male is true or not, my bet would have to be that the accusation is true. But we should not ruin someone’s livelihood or their reputation on a guess.
Mike Hatcher
Mike, agree. For the average Joe in an average position that is accused if this behavior, most companies sill do a complete review and when sufficient info confirms the complaint, then Joe is fired. And no one other the accused and accuser knows other than the companies HR and one in ” need to know” positions”.
Then there are positions such as Rose and Smiley. More in the public eye, but for what reason would someone accuse them if not true. Maybe one pissed off employee, but hard to get multiple women to say this if not true. But due to being one of the faces of the company, the reaction of the company needs to be faster when it becomes public, but still they seem to investigate before it becomes public.
As for politicians, they have a completely different set of rules. Their accusers usually go public before any other accusations take place. Depending on the political position of the citizen, they either watch a liberal or conservative new outlet. They watch that news and the politician is either guilty or being accused of a false claim. In some cases, the accusers wait 20+ years to come forward and proof is near impossible to provide. It is a he said/she said, but the damage is done. And a lawsuit either way would almost end in a hung jury since neither could prove anything, leaving a divided decision.
Some of clinton’s accusers have not come forward until recently.
Broderick was drug into the spotlight kicking and screaming, Clinton lawyers got her to deny what happened to her in return for leaving her alone, and only much later did she confirm that she was raped by Bill Clinton.
You can beleive her – or not.
I would note that there are myriads of reasons people lie about these types of things.
AND myriads of reasons people do NOT come forward.
There are no easy answers.
You have to evaluate each instance on its own.
This is also why – where force is not involved – we should keep it out of government.
Sometimes peoples reputations end up getting destroyed falsely – sometimes the accused, sometimes the accuser.
Life is messy.
We do not have a magical truth detector.
I beleive the one complaint against Moore that is close to a rape.
That is also the one where the yearbook may be forged.
I beleive that BOTH the incident occured and the yearbook is forged.
People telling the truth sometimes do things they should not in order to improve their credibility.
Even good people make stupid mistakes.
Again why we want to keep as much as possible out of government.
It is much easier to fix mistakes outside of government.
Further the cost – losing a job, being ostrecised, is not as bad as all of the same – plus jailed.
We want to err on the side of doubt when we are talking about using force.
Among the most extreme libertarians there is disagreement over whether fraud, and defamation should be part of the NAP.
I usually include it because that is not a debate I wish to get into – atleast not without making it clear what is being debated.
Walter Block – whos is far more “extreme” than I. Has made an excelent argument that outside of actual agreements (and possibly in them) that misrepresentations are best punnished by the market.
That defamation laws actually harm us – they make it more likely that we will beleive false allegations.
If we had no defamation ro fraud laws, if people could lie, then we would be less inclined to beleive everything that was said. We would also be more inclined to economically punish lying.
Essentially if reputation was not protected by courts it would be protected by markets.
I am not taking sides on this issue. I am not sure what I think, But I recognize that Block has made an argument that deserves though.
Well I will say Block in this regard is poppy cock. Whats the market for a 30 year old office clerk at a national news agency accusing one of the reporters of sexual misconduct.
There has to be a market that someone will injure before that market is impacted.
Block is very easy to read. the book is available as a free ebook.
https://mises.org/system/tdf/Defending%20the%20Undefendable_2.pdf?file=1&type=document
One of the issues you and I constantly have is:
I say “there is another way”, and you evaluate that “other way” as if nothing else changes.
IF you eliminate laws against defamation. Everyone will know that there are no laws against defamation. So rather than beleive an allegation just because it has been made, they will have to assess it.
This particularly issue is one that exists in most of out conflicts.
Without regulation – people will have to make choices – assuming there is no regulation.
They are inherently going to look for other means of establishing trust.
One of the cores of the conflict between libertarians is Trust.
The non-libertarian approach to the world is that it is government that allows us to trust.
That is false. Trust comes from peoples actions and behavior. It has always required us to be personally vigilant. Government neuters our vigilance and makes us more prone to make errors in judgement – because we trust badly.
Trust BTW is absolutely critical, it is a requirement to improve our standard of living. We do not engage in beneficial exchange absent trust that we will be better off.
Credit is a form of trust.
A major part of the threat of bitcoin and other open digitial crypto currencies is their ability to create sufficient trust for free exchange without the need for govenrment (or banks).
While I am talking about trust in the positive sense. The negative aspect is also implied.
If there are no laws against defamation we will be less inclined to believe something just because it has been said. We would have to figure out what we beleive.
The consequence of lying – would be people would quit beleiviing you.
Just as on ebay the consequences of failure to deliver on a sale is people would not buy from you.
Dave “I say “there is another way”, and you evaluate that “other way” as if nothing else changes.”
The reason for most of this is my “distrust” of the awareness of most people. You believe that if change occurs, then the way people think will change. I dont think that will occur in most instances.
In the cases of lying and changes to defamation lawsuits, I dont believe more than 5% of Americans think about lawsuits or lack of lawsuits when someone makes a comment about another person. And if there was not defamation laws, I think the same would occur.
Had this been 75 years ago, you might be right. In todays environment, there are way too many ” if its on the internet, it has to be true”. People believe what they read without regard to source.
“ou believe that if change occurs, then the way people think will change. I dont think that will occur in most instances.”
No I beleive the way people will act will change.
When you change circumstances people pretty much always respond differently. That is close to always the case.
Change some aspect of the way you relate to your wife – I will assure you, the way she acts will change. I may not be able to perfectly predict how, but change the condictions and you always change peoples actions.
Thinking changes more slowly.
“In the cases of lying and changes to defamation lawsuits, I dont believe more than 5% of Americans think about lawsuits or lack of lawsuits when someone makes a comment about another person. And if there was not defamation laws, I think the same would occur.”
Do we litterally think ” they could get sued for defamation ?”
No.
Are we still more likely to believe very damaging accusations when the target does not immediately seek to squielch them
BTW – this is not merely true of “people” it is also true of government and courts.
“Had this been 75 years ago, you might be right. In todays environment, there are way too many ” if its on the internet, it has to be true”. People believe what they read without regard to source.”
I like the way things are today better than how they were.
75 years ago most people – even many experts did not have the information necescary to make the choices they were making all the time.
I do not think it is true that people will beleive anything.
More accurate is people will easily belief without proof most anything that conforms to their existing values. Left, Right, even libertarains. BTW it is just as true – possibly truer of smart people than less smart ones.
A study came out recently that has concluded that by empiracle measure modern scientific and academic peer review is on net significantly negative compared to the prior era where papers were not peer reviewed.
Peer reveiw almost never involves repeating the experiment, checking the data, methods and statistical and mathematical measures.
The point is even the scientific community is hostage to entrecnhed group think and massive confirmation bias.
One of the really good things about being libertarian today is that you can be assured that nearly everyone will tell you you are wrong about just about everything.
Libertariaism drives a virtuous circle of thinking for yourself.
You will constantly get arguments from both the left and right – and on rare occasions they will be good.
…
If those are Trump’s new years resolutions – that is fine with me.
If Putin has joined them – I think that Putin is the puppet.
Trump has done more with a bare bones state department in the past year than Obama managed in 8 years.
Romney was eviscerated for his participation in Baines.
What did Naines do ? They took over failing businesses and they cut our the dead wood, made them profitable again and sold them.
Trump is doing the same to the federal government.
This pisses the hell out of those who do not understand that throwing more money at problems often makes them worse.
Standard of living is raised ONLY when we do more with less.
“Trump has done more with a bare bones state department in the past year than Obama managed in 8 years.”
Argument by Assertion.
Plus you’re delusional
Jay/Dave..There is no way Trump has done more with the state department than Obama. I can list at least 10 things that impacted the states department.
1. Apology to Europe for “America has shown arrogance and been dismissive” toward Europe.
2. “We Have Not Been Perfect” when addressing the Muslim world
3. “A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies” when talking of Gitmo.
4. “our government made a series of hasty decisions. We went off course” when addressing terror at a national archives speech.
5 “In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values and who we are. We are sacrificing our values” when addressing Gitmo at a French speech
6. “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history.” during a speech in Turkey concerning Gitmop, slavery, native Americans” in a speech given to the Turks.
7.”We’ve Made Some Mistakes” in a speech given to the CIA after he ordered the release of the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.
8. “The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors” when apeeking about our involvement with our Americas neighbors.
9 “At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms” in an address to the Summit of the Americas
10. “it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions” in a speech given to the G-20 members summit.
I could go on, but this might not even post due to word press and I can’t retype it. But the gist is Obama apologized for most everything America had ever done in the past and very seldom ever took credit for anything positive that America ever did. I think his view of America was shaped because he was basically an immigrant and had formed views of America at a young age while growing up in a foreign country. Once some views are formed and then one comes to America while in their teens, they harbor many of their beliefs they learned while young. And if anyone questions that thinking, why is the training in communist and socialism begun at a very young age in those countries?
Our country has made many mistakes.
So has every other country in the world.
I nearly choked on a comment from Mark Stein recently.
I can not quote it exactly, but the exchange basically went that Europe has serious problems right now because tens of millions are exiting failed former colonies and trying to immigrate to europe.
Europeans are supposed to accept this millions as punishment for the sins of colonialism,
but for all its evils it is the colonialist exploitation of these people that raised their standards of living , and its end that has resulted in failure and the demand to immigrate.
However bad european colonialism was – its absence has for many nations proven much worse.
While I do not 100% go along with that.
the argument that the success of the west is the consequence of the exploitation of everyone else is garbage.
The north did not lose the civil war – if slavery was this tremendous economic engine the south would have been invincible. ‘
There is an enormous gulf between we have made mistakes and we own our success and prosperity to the exploitation of others.
Almost every single dominiant theme of oppression of the left today – is both true and far less consequential than portrayed.
If you are black, brown, yellow, female, gay, ….
it will make succeeding in the world harder.
If you are not handsome, personable, talented, strong, intelligent, hard working
it will make succeeding in the world harder.
The latter is far more important than the former.
The west has succeeded more than the rest of the world – because of a single idea – individual liberty. It has made mistakes and exploited others along the way. But that exploitation is not the cause of our success.
Rather than apologize to the rest of the world for mistakes that are not the fundimental cause of their problems. The most important thing we have to offer is out example.
American exceptionalism is not about better people, it is not about more resources – africa has resources that dwarf the world, it is because of our ideas, and our values.
And those are free to anyone.
Further I want our government to appologize – but not to europeans or the mideast, but to us.
The CIA coup in Iran was a disaster – FOR US. Iran is responsible for itself.
It is the harm it caused US I care about.
No Jay,
it is all self evident.
The mideast was not in great shape when Obama was elected, but somehow he managed to make it far worse.
We have a way to go, but things are rapidly improving.
Under Obama china has played us, under Trump we are playing China.
Under Obama NK has developed ICBM’s capable of reaching the US and war-heads – possibly H bombs to go on them. I think they only have 3rd generation atomic bombs, but it is a small step from those to h bombs.
Obama sought to influence brexit and alienate the UK from the US.
Trump is building bridges.
Obama presided over the decline of Nato
Trump has told europe to get their act together or we are out.
They are getting their act together.
Obama was busy roaming the world apologizing for america.
Trump has said – you want our help or not ? If so then respect us.
We have the refugees from the state department telling us that things are going to hell.
Where is the evidence of that ?
Russia was actually growing as a global power under Obama.
In area after area they are being contained.
Trump guaranteed European gas – should Russia use its natural gas to threaten again.
It does not matter – you have blinders on.
Trump is not perfect – we should be withdrawling from Afghanistan.
Being there is expensive and serves no purpose.
There are complaints all over about the US militaries readiness.
The major issue is almost two decades of continuous fighting in the mideast.
“In an email to Business Insider about the recent poll, Cuban said that the result “just proves people are bored :).”
Jay, as an “any republican/ libertarian except Trump (even Cruz,gag)” I think any wealthy business person has to be completely mentally deranged to go through what Trump and his family has gone through. And if not for the Russia,Russia,Russia investigation, the jnvestigations into businesses would be unending. You need to be an incompetent politician to run for president and not open yourself, family or businesses to unending investigations if your profession is business.
If Mark Cuban runs, he needs a complete mental evaluation because he would be demonstrating behavior of someone detached from reality.
I agree, he’d be foolish to make a target of himself, and his family.
But he could have some fun threatening to do it…
Yea Cuban. He is smarter, nicer, better looking, worked his way up instead of inheriting wealth, and he is younger and he may be richer (not a disqualifier). Cuban for President, who cares if he doesn’t have experience? Not the people who voted for trump.
The inherent problem when so many abandon ship because they can’t stand Captain Putz is those who remain are likeminded.
USS SCHLUMP:
When a new captain takes over – if you can not salute and say “yes sir” then you should resign.
I am far more concerned about those in government who think they are part of the #resistance.
If you wish to oppose Trump – that is your right – as an individual, not as an employee of the executive branch.
These people in the DOJ/FBI/… who are being outed as very active Clinton supporters willing to use the power of government to elect Hillary – should have resigned.
Now they should be fired.
Right, keep saluting the Captain, Dumb-Dumb, even when he’s loonier than this guy:
Jay, could you link to sites that are not subscription based. The Wall Street Journal charges for anything one wants to read.Looks like interesting info, but not interesting enough to buy into the WSJ to read.
I don’t do it intentionally, Ron. The links are often included with the tweet link, and I don’t subscribe to them either. Sometimes the ‘paid’ sites give you a few free looks; and you can extend those by copying the link address and pasting it in a different browser.
Well dang, a tweet is just someones incoherent two sentence comment with nothing to back it up. Just like Trumps daily comments.
About 1/2 of WSJ’s editorial page is not paywalled.
SOMETIMES you can google the title of the article and find a link to a WSJ article that bypasses the pay wall.
I used to be able to do that reliably – the first or 2nd link would get me in.
Today I usually have to try a dozen links to get past the paywall.
That makes it not worth it.
You think comparisons to Reagan make Trump look bad ?
I do not know how this is being measured.
Thus far Trump has lost one cabinet appointment – Price, who I think was a good choice, but made a serious mistake with Travel – though I would note – Price’s use was about the same as Obama cabinet members. The other Trump cabinet members who are using private jets are using actual private jets – and paying for them.
There has been about a normal level of reshuffling in the whitehouse.
But Trump has has more carreer public servants leave than anything since probably Andrew Jackson.
That I think is a really good thing. Few are being replaced – also good.
And the Federal Government is not coming to a grinding halt.
Regardless, we elected a president whose buzz words are “You’re Fired”.
As far as I am concerned he has done that far too little. He needed to clean house at the upper levels of ever agency rapidly after the election – even if he could not fill the position.
Or had to temporarily promote significantly junior members of the prior administration.
Who thinks the FBI and DOJ would not be better off if Trump had cleaned house day one.
Even if 3rd tier people were promoted temporarily.
He has spent much of the past year dealing with Obama holdovers and they have been doing their best to screw him over.
I am happy that people are leaving public service in droves.
This is highly speculative at this point, but ya never know what proves out down the road.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-questions-rnc-digital-operation-trump-campaign-russia-2017-12
If the President’s son-in-law (who still has security clearance) is found complicit in the above speculation, should tRUMP be pressured to resign?
Jay, yes if three criterias are met.
1. If Kushner is found guilty in a court of law of criminal wrongdoing
2. If Trump is proven to have known and approved of the illegal activities Kushner is found guilty.
3. If Trump finds himself in the same situation as Nixon where the House articles kf impeachment are a forgone conclusion and 66 senators in the senate are known suppkrters if impeachment.
If these three are not met, then we just have ankther Bill Clinton impeachment situation.
So, if it were me with all the politically motivated investigations, I would gather my family and tell them I am sick of this crap, we accomplished tax reform and undoing everything Obama did by EO, I would insure that all judge positions open now had a nominee and at the end of the SOTU address, I would announce my resignation for the good of my family.
Why sound anyone go through what this guy is going through. Trumps an ass, but no one deserves this type of treatment.
All those weird words are auto correct. The typos are mine.
Complicit in What ?
If you actually find the RNC providing social media targetting information to Russia – Republicans as a whole have a huge problem – even if it was legal it will make any hoped for democratic political tsunamin in 2018 a reality.
It will not matter who is implicated.
All of which is precisely why there is not a chance in hell you are finding that.
What you will find is that late in the campaign Kushner and the RNC worked together to hone the Republicans social media targetting.
What better NOT happen is any leaks regarding how the RNC runs their operations in anyway getting to democrats – if that occurs Mueller and his team may find themselves in jail.
I find this entire hypothetical a hail marry that even Mueller is not stupid enough to try – or atleast I hope.
Think about it Jay – Mueller dredges through the Trump Transition records, and then RNC records, and he finds nothing.
But things that should not have gotten out leak.
Lets say that as a result of Mueller’s investigation there is a DNC like leak of RNC records.
Sounds like turn about is fair play.
Except that the DNC leak was not orchestrated by the US government.
While anything coming from the RNC or transition will be.
The left continues to be oblivious to their own effort to abuse government power.
You can not seem to grasp that your beleif that someone else is a bad person who has done bad things, does not justify a government investigation.
“You can not seem to grasp that your beleif that someone else is a bad person who has done bad things, does not justify a government investigation.”
Why is it that you constantly write the dumbest things?
If the tenants in a building report a horrible smell in one of the apartments, and the Fire Fepartment summoned to investigate the odor finds a stack of dead bodies inside, should they ignore them because they’re not a fire hazard, and dead bodies are outside their jurisdiction?
If during Mueller’s investigation he stumbles upon evidence that tRUMP has a hidden website filled with child pornography, are you saying Mueller has no right to investigate that, and ignore it?
“If the tenants in a building report a horrible smell in one of the apartments, and the Fire Fepartment summoned to investigate the odor”
In much of the country the Fire department would be called. Regardless, they are nearly always an after the fact investigative body.
Dead bodies do not smell like anything that would related to fire departments.
” finds a stack of dead bodies inside”
Unless the door is wide opened, or the tenant in that apartment invited whoever in.
Or the landlord was called and let whoever in.
You would need a warrant.
“, should they ignore them because they’re not a fire hazard, and dead bodies are outside their jurisdiction?”
In your hypothetical – without a warrant or someone with rights to the space – such as the landlord or owner allows whatever “investigator” you are fixated on in – you do not get in.
The police or fire department can get in – with exigent circumstances – such as an actual fire.
Maybe if there is a smell of gas.
But unless there is an immediate risk of serious harm, or whatever you “find” is in plain sight from the outside, or someone with rights to the space – a landlord or tenant lets you in,
You will have to get a warrant.
“If during Mueller’s investigation he stumbles upon evidence that tRUMP has a hidden website filled with child pornography, are you saying Mueller has no right to investigate that, and ignore it?:
What crime was Mueller appointed to investigate ?
There is very little that an investigator can do without probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by a specific person or persons.
Without probable cause Mueller can snoop arround from the outside – but he can not issue subpoena’s or get a warrant.
To get a warrant you must swear that you have probable cause to beleive that a specific crime has been committed by a specific person, You must further specify what will be searched for and where it will be searched.
It you search for a car, in a toilet and find drugs – the drugs will be thrown out.
I seek this:
“If during Mueller’s investigation he stumbles upon evidence that tRUMP has a hidden website filled with child pornography, are you saying Mueller has no right to investigate that, and ignore it?:
You sidestepped answering that direct question with this:
“What crime was Mueller appointed to investigate ?”
Which is why it’s a waste of time conversing with you.
Jay, the investigation is open ended. The authorization that appoints him states he is directed to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and…any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
And that last part is the problem with this aurhorization. Its like a job description that states in the last item of the jobs description ” and any duties assigned by the supervisor “.
If the FBI is investigating money laundering by a foreign businessman and they go into a residence and find 4 bodies of a family shot to death and this family has no relationship to their investigation, they turn that over to LEO’s. Under Muellers authorization, he would retain control and try to link those deaths to the money laundering case and threaten any associate of the foreign national with some crime associated with the murders to get them to talk. That is overreach, just like his current investigation.
But for those that their whole life is wrapped around finding Trump did something wrong, the fear of government infringing on individual security is lost to them.
And the thing I find so intriguing is the fact that the people who are so dead set against the government having access to iphone encryption so they can unlock any phone include most of the people who have no problem with Muellers overreach.
Straw man, and hyperbolee.
If Mueller – in the course of a legitimate investigation – which he does nto have – there is no crime, legally acquired evidence of an unrelated crime – whether that is child pornography or double parking, then he should ask to have the scope of his investigation expanded – as Starr did, and as the SC law requires.
If Mueller proceeds – even against a real crime, without conforming to the law, that is vile.
It puts the courts in the awkward position of either having to release an actual criminal or to allow a violation of peoples rights.
That is more immoral and corruption than whatever Mueller is persuing.
What I would hope is that Mueller will NOT “stumble onto a child pornography ring” and then be unable to prosecute it because he has investigated lawlessly.
The ends do not justify the means.
”
What crime was Mueller appointed to investigate ?”
Which is why it’s a waste of time conversing with you.
”
Again US law enforment investigates crimes – not people.
It is not enough to beleive someone is a bad person who must have done something wrong.
“If Mueller proceeds – even against a real crime, without conforming to the law, that is vile.”
Point to the section of the law that states that….
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule
Dave, so evidence collected illegally can not be used if not part of a warrant.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html
How does b(ii) of the above authorization play into the “illegal” collection of information. If they have a legal warrant to investigate items in b(i) and something completely different from b(i) shows up and it is completely illegal, is that not part of the blanket authorization for anything covered by b(ii)?
“Dave, so evidence collected illegally can not be used if not part of a warrant.”
This is about law so I want to rephrase what you said to be more accurate.
Illegally obtained evidence is generally not admissible and often if it is admitted that is an error that could result in reversal with prejudice.
That used to be a near absolute rule. Today there are exceptions – a growing list of exceptions that you can often drive a truck through.
But the principle is still the same.
As a rule of thumb a search or seizure conducted without a warrant has a very high risk of being treated as illegally obtained evidence. Again not absolute – but still a good bet.
Where possible law enforcement should get a warrant.
They are not that hard to get, and it is much much harder to block evidence obtained using a warrant.
.
Rosensteins letter does not conform to the Special Counsel law – or the constitution.
The Special Counsel law requires as defined narrow scope as well as specifying an actual crime to investigate.
Law enforcement can investigate without a warrant or a crime. But there is very little it can do.
The FBI can ask to talk with you – just like your neighbor can.
But until an investigation becomes an investigation of a crime. There is not much they can do, but ask questions and observe.
You can not get a warrant without specifying a crime.
As easy as warrants are to get no judge is going to sign a “I want to know” warrant.
BTW the 4th amendment is not there accidentally. One of the greivances of the colonists that resulted in the revolution was the British use of “general warrants” which allowed an officer of the crown to go anywhere and demand anything. These were pretty much unique to the colonies.
The UK has long had a very strong tradition regardling searches – which is where our law derives.
The “castle doctrine” – that a man should be secure in his castle and his home is his castle originated in 14th century england.
Rules such as knock and announce – came from early england.
They also came from “common sense”.
The british courts found that if law enforcement raided at unusual times – like dawn, or if it raided without announcment, that honest people might feel threatened, feel it necescary to defend their home against unknown assailants and that people might end up getting killed.
In the US today – no knock warrants – which were virtually unheard of until the 70’s result in more violence and death – both of police and those being raided.
And periodically with dead innocents when a SWAT team serves a warrant on the wrong people
Rosenstiens letter defines the scope of the investigation.
Its errors are an independent problem from warrants. Illegally obtained evidence, ….
It is arguable that if Mueller is operating under Rosenstiens scope but NOT investigating a crime – that any evidence he obtains could be supressed.
That is highly unlikely to happen.
The issue of whether Mueller can follow what he finds where it leads is both independent, and may not be the same for law enforcement generally as for Mueller.
An ordinary criminal investigation can floow the evidence wherever it leads – including new crimes. BUT the decisions regarding what to follow up on are not always in the hands of the investigators.
A special counsel investigation is confined to scope in their authorizing letter.
If they find something new – even criminal outside that scope they must either:
Ask for an expanded scope, or turn the matter over to DOJ/FBI.
As a hopefully clear example. If as a result of the Trump/Russia investigation Mueller trips over evidence of a smuggling ring that has nothing to do with Trump./Russia but was just coincidentally exposed as a result of Muellers investigation, Mueller would turn that over the the FBI to persue further.
Dave, “Mueller would turn that over the the FBI to persue further.”
Well I am way out on the tip of the branch on this one as my trust of a political investigation such as the one run by Mueller is at zero. I trust him less than the known outcome of Clintons e-mail investigation and the Comey “fix” to insure it went nowhere.
When his authorization says he can investigate any other matters (b(ii)) found in his primary investigation, that means to me he can use (B) to prosecute (C) with information gathered in investigating (A) even though that has no association at all with his primary directive. Is that not what is happening to Manafort in his desire to get Manafort to roll on Trump?
Those in Government can do – whatever we let them.
The law, the constitution, mean absolutely nothing is government does as it pleases and we do not care.
I argue constantly for the “rule of law” – even when it is works against my own personal views.
When the law is wrong – we work to change it.
In the mean time we must still govern according to it, and we must expect it to be put into effect uniformly – not by whim.
What we self evidently have now is law as subservient to politics.
i would take note that though there is some alignment, this is not the typical left/right political conflict, but that of the elite who think it is their right to govern us and Trump who was elected to end the rule of the elite.
Despite the fact that some of the current players have been identified as blatantly partisan.
Which should not be that surprising as despite their ranting about democracy, the left is about our betters governing us for our own good. It is the government of bread and circuses.
This is not inherently a partisan battle. Many of those you have lost faith in – are not partisan – atleast not in the democrat/republican sense.
But they are highly partisan in protecting the status quo – the rule of the elite from disempowerment by Trump and the angry hordes of ignorant outsiders.
The common thread of the Clinton and Trump investigations is not right/left.
It is that the FBI/DOJ/SC do not give a crap about the rule of law.
I am conflicted about Trump. I do not particularly think he is a nice guy.
I would not cry if he was legitimately jailed or impeached.
But I do care about disrupting the causes he was elected to advance.
There are ways that those who disagree – and I am sometimes one of those, can legitimately obstruct Trump. And there are ways that are illegitimate.
Jay, Roby, the media, the left are quite overtly acting as if destroying Trump as a person will destroy the forces that elected him. That is a very very dangerous strategy, and it is morally wrong.
This election was a watershed – and that is a major part of why the left can not accept it and why they must find Trump/Russian influence as determinative.
Trump brought together a variety of people whose common thread was anger at the elites and forced them into a winning coalition.
One of the bizzarre but telling things about the election was that Trump got an unusually large portion of disaffected sanders voters.
Ideologically Sanders voters should be the most absolute #neverTrump voters.
But many people were not voting for sanders the socialist. They were voting for Sanders the outsider.
The message that is not being heard is that “we do not like Washington’ and we do not want “business as usual”. that we are prepared to see the walls come tumbling down.
We are willing to risk destruction in order to see change.
This is also why I think Republicans may do well in 2018 and Trump will likely be re-elected in 2020.
In 2016 we elected the barbarian to destroy and rebuild – understanding that the risks associated with letting the barbarians in are enormous. But so great was our anger at the elites that Trump won the election.
In 2020 so long as Trump does nto appear to have been coopted by the elites.
Everything will be much the same EXCEPT the risk will be quite obviously lower.
Trump will remain the candidate to tear down washington.
But he will not be the “dangerous” candidate. He will be palettable by people who in 2016 want the elites disempowered but were not prepared to risk Trump.
To be specific – the rule of law has not existed with any of this.
Yes, Mueller’s authorization violates the constitution and the special counsel law, and yes Mueller has exceeded even the constraints of that authorization.
But none of that matters unless he can be held to it.
I see no one seeking to compel Mueller to follow the rule of law.
For me these issues are far bigger than Trump.
I do not want warrantless searches – not by Mueller – not by my local police.
I do not want “no knock warrants”.
I want an end to the war on drugs – not so I can go out and shoot heroin, but because I want the constitution and bill of rights that have been shredded fighting it back.
You argue for regulation. It does not matter whether it is our stupid drug laws, or pleasant sounding environmental regulations. All unjustified infringements on our rights – come not merely at the expense of the specific right they infringe on, but all our rights.
The cost of the war on drugs is not the loss of our right to shoot heroin, it is the loss of our right to privacy, to the presumption of innocence.
The difference between drug laws and regulations is that the former more rapidly erode our rights.
What is disturbing watching all that is going on in washington is that so many of the Jay’s and Roby’s and … are so wrapped up in acheiving their desired Trump Free ends, that they are not merely missing but openly justifying the blatant destuction of the “rule of law” that not only is occuring with Trump, but occurred with Clinton, and even more importantly still is quite obviously the norm.
At this point I could care less about “getting Clinton”.
But I am completely appalled by the fact that quite obviously the outcome was predetermined and the objective of the investigation was to reach the desired outcome.
I doubt that what occurred during the Obama administration was unique.
I do not know how long it has taken for this cancer of lawlessness to grow.
But it must end.
It should be self evident at this point that these people need to go,
That the Rosenstiens, Mueller;s comey’s mccabe’s Uhr, Baker, Strzok, ….
and the people arround them. Anyone in power who has been silent.
Not because of the Trump Russia investigation – but because these are not people we can trust to do anything.
Some time ago I linked to a long video about a DOJ investigation of Howerd Root.
I do not see that fiasco as different from this.
I honestly see our entire law enforcement as corrupted.
I was watching a documentary on Bitcoin where an early Bitcoin broker was arrested and jailed because he knew that some of the people buying bitcoins were going to use them to purchase drugs. But every banker knows that the cash that provide is going tobe used to buy drugs.
Again we have used the drug war to destroy rights everywhere.
While I do not beleive that freely exchanging A for B should be illegal – regardless of what A or B are. I certainly do not beleive that exchanging B for C should be illegal – when both B and C are legal just because B can be exchanged for A which is illegal.
It is not our jobs to police our neighbors 5 levels deep.
Both the left and right have on different issues sold us this nonsense that we can criminalize otherwise legal actions – because they might contribute to illegal actions.
Dave, I think we basically agree on Mueller.
Theer are some, including some here a TNM, that will have an anal hemmorrage over government deregulation of the internet because it may impact there internet experience now, but anything that picks away pieces of rights is unimportant. And then when the time comes where they have someone in trouble and procedures were not followed, but the issue moves forward, they will be the first to scream constitutional rights.
“To bad Jack, you lost them in 2018” ( quote in 2030)
The Internet was deemed completely outside the domain of the FCC until late 2015.
At that time controversially the FCC voter 3-2 that it had the power to regulate the internet.
Regulations were NOT imposed immediately – infact I am not sure any actual regulation was completed. – if there was it was very little. Finally in august of 2017 the FCC voted 3-2 that they do NOT have the authority to regulate the internet.
The internet has evolved almost entirely free of regulation. It is a pretty good reflection of how actual free markets work. It is sometimes nasty and ugly, but overall it makes our lives much better. Regulation will make it less nasty and less ugly, and it will also substantually reduce the rate at which our lives improve.
The only real effect “net Neutrality has had – and this is well documented is stalling infrastructure investment. Not because regulations were imposed – but because of the fear of regulation.
Precisely the thing that the left fears regarding NN I want Badly.
I want NetFlix (or anyone else) to be able to pay ISP’s to get more reliabale service.
I want ISP’s to beleive they can profit from providing better faster higher quality service – and they will be able to – briefly.
I spent many decades negotiating cell phone prices for the family business and eventually myself.
Those negotiations always went pretty much the same:
ME: I want to reduce my costs.
REP: I will look into that – but if you sing up for another year, you can get more phones, more data, more services for the same price.
I was never able to pay less for Cell Service. I also never had to pay more.
But I always year after year get more for the same price.
I had constant debates with people who claimed the internet was going to go to metered billing – like phone and cell phone service – any day now.
What has happened is nearly everything has gone to fixed monthly subscriptions like the internet.
In the actual free market – prices do not rise EVER – except occasional very temporary spokes – when something is new, or when it temporarily becomes artificially scare.
The free market is an engine for reducing scarcity – that BTW is critical, and that is why every single malthusian prediction ever has always been false. Whatever ti si we are supposed to run out of – we have and will never run out of. Because the role of prices and the economy is to convert scarcity to abunddance. That is what the law of supply and demand means.
As supply decreases prices rise. Rising prices drive more people to find some way of delivering – and profiting from higher prices. Either by somehow evercoming scarcity or by finding a feasible substitute. There is no resource in existance that is not far far far more abundant that humans could ever need. It is just not economically accessible at todays prices.
Rising prices today mean falling prices tomorow. Absent government induced inflation, all prices trend DOWN over the long run.
Free markets are and always have been MILDLY deflationary.
They must be – that is built into the formula for increased standard of living – more value for less uman effort.
Dave you might want to read my original comment again because you missed my point completely. For those that read it like Dave, it was not about net neutrality. It was about how one responds to perceived rights and the reaction one has about any changes. It is about how out government is slowing pecking away at the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Not all web sites for Arab related activities are inciting a riot and even then it could be difficult to determine just what the outcome would be. So when our government gets involved with Facebook and starts dictating to them who and what can be on their sites, that is just one more piece of the bill of rights down the crapper.
Ron;
Unless I disagree with you, I probably agree.
I often respond to a single issue in someone else’s much larger post.
You have what you want to say.
I have what I want to say.
I completely agree with you regarding free speach.
I am near absolutist on free speach.
I would rather take the risk of allowing people to say bad things – to threaten to defame, to harrass with speach, than to give government a toe hold for even the slightest censorship.
The response to bad speach is more speach.
I beleive I posted Prof. Haidt’s article that found that greater polarisation turns out to be a good thing. That it means that competing ideas are well advocated and more thoroughly critiqued and that the results tend to be better than in less polarized environments.
Of Course John Stuart Mill made that argument 200 years ago – now we have data to support it.
I would allow people to yell fire in a crowded theater (which despite being the common example of what is not permitted – actually is permitted according to the current supreme court speach standard and has been for many decades). I would allow people to threaten and to attempt to incite riots. I am particularly concerned about prior restraint.
There are myriads of means of punishing truly harmful speach.
The theater owner can ban you for life.
Or patran’s can sue you for their injuries.
These are after the fact responses. The latter is a tort. I have repeatedly argued that Torts are far better than regulation.
If you are the cause of actual harm to another – it does not matter precisely how, you are responsible. But it is always AFTER THE FACT. There must be real harm.
I want to re-iterate that while I think many tort cases (toxic torts in particular) have been badly decided, That is not the same as opposing torts. I want less or no regulation,. I want torts to be far easier not harder.
I want people to shun you because you say stupid things – not use force to silence you.
I want more disparate viewpoints – even bad ones.
I want Nazi’s to have blogs where everyone can find out who they are.
I want people to be able to say bad things – so that we can know who they truly are.
Dave “Unless I disagree with you, I probably agree.
I often respond to a single issue in someone else’s much larger post.”
Thats fine, but that makes it difficult for the person listed in the email notification “in response to”. How is someone to know that what you are saying is not ” in response to Xxx”
If you could at least copy the initial segment of the comment you are responding to, it would keep OCD people from ” What the hell did he think I said”.
I will try to be clearer. I think I quote the post I am replying to more frequently than most here, though clearly not all the time.
Reqardless, I think it is reasonable to expect that If my response is specific to a part of your post, that is the part I wanted to respond to.
It is also reasonable not to assume that because I have responded – I am always disagreeing.
Quite often you or someone else says something as a small part of a post, and that is what I want to talk about. Sometimes to disagree, sometimes to agree and elaborate.
We are all different – even when we agree we still do not weigh the same things with the same importance.
All exchanges are not arguments. Further just as you have particular topics that interest you that you want to delve more deeply in – so do I.
Hopefully you post at TNM because you get something out of it.
I have already said that I do. I get many things out of it. I get pleasure from it, and I use it to hone a specific set of skills – the ability to make a coherent argument rapidly.
One of my personal objectives is to reduce the time and increase the quality of what I post here.
Is there someone posting here regularly that is not at least a bit OCD ?
“Why sound anyone go through what this guy is going through. Trumps an ass, but no one deserves this type of treatment.
Ron, I’ve thought exactly the same thing. Trump is almost 72, has an 11 year old son and can live a life of luxury, without the political BS and knowing that he undid almost everything that Obama tried to fundamentally transform about America. If he can do immigration reform and infrastructure, he will have accomplished more that anyone thought possible. That would be enough for most people…although, Trump is certainly not like most people.
We’ve created a political world that’s such a meat grinder, you have to be half crazy to even want to be president.
“We’ve created a political world that’s such a meat grinder, you have to be half crazy to even want to be president.”
Or a narcissistic egomaniacal sociopath. Bingo!
We are all engaged in reading snake entrails.
But I think Trump is happy as president.
More fishing.
1). If I were to bet – this is fake news – or atleast a serious exageration, I do not think even Mueller is stupid enough to go there. Republicans MIGHT sit idly by while Mueller investigates Trump, but not while he and his staff with very strong ties to the DNC raid the RNC. Just not happening.
This is more left wing nut wishful thinking.
2). The relationship between Trump and the RNC was strained throughout the election.
The role of the RNC in the election was quite small.
Most of Trump’s social medai and digital work was done by his own people BEFORE connecting with RNC.
3). There is only one legitimate area of exploration for Mueller here – and that is ties to Russia.
There are not even credible allegations of ties between the RNC and russia.
Separately investigating the RNC is even more dangerous form Mueller than investigating the Transition. You now have a team of investigators with very strong ties to democrats investigating the political aparatus of their opponents. Trump does nto have to go nuts over this – the entire republician party will.
Democrats were not even willing to allow the FBI access to their servers after they were purportedly hacked. Do you think the RNC is going to be more cooperative
Hey Dave, did you get some good booze for Xmas? You seem more mellow this past few days. 🥂🥂🥂🥂🥂
Or maybe you are more mellow and not taking everything I say as a personal insult.
Much of the personal conflict between you and I, and also Roby, would disappear if
you did not treat facts as personal insults.
The left makes everything personal.
The critique of an idea is treated as a personal insult if it is your idea.
Or you stake out the moral high ground and are surprised when you get knocked off.
Most of my attacks are attacks on bad ideas. They only become about you – when you make them about you.
“Much of the personal conflict between you and I, and also Roby, would disappear if
you did not treat facts as personal insults.
The left makes everything personal.”
Ah, back to your old brittle brained sanctimonious self.
Neither Roby or I are the “Left”-
We’re the Center.
You are the Santimonious Opinionated Rationalizing Republican Kiss Ass Conservative In Libertarian Clothing Right.
The fact that you don’t see referring to us as “the Left” over and over is insulting, lends credence to my charge that you’re a putz. But stay that way, it’s part of your charm.
Jay, as one who has had as many disagreements as agreements with Dave, how can you say you are moderate, centrist or however you define your positions when you would make MSNBC look like a moderate news agency based on your TNM postings?
I agree Roby is much more moderate.
Jay can call himself whatever he wants – that is his business.
But I am not obligated to call him by his prefered ideological identifier.
Further political identity is not 1 dimensional.
There is a libertarian comic that starts his monolog with – and over here on the far right are the libertarians, and over here on the far left are libertarains.
But for the moment Jay shares two strong attributes with the left – “argh! Trump”, and the overwhelming majority of what he posts is emotional appeals.
Yeah, true is true, Jay.
The fact that you consider yourself the “center” is evidence of a rather extreme lack of self-awareness.
Then again, in California, you might be closer to the center than you are in the “real world”…….
I do tend to forget he is in CA. He probably is near center for CA.
But I grew up and lived for many years after in New York – oh wait, New Yorkers detest tRUMP too!
And then I lived in DC for a while, and oh yeah, the voters in DC can’t stand #PresidentPooPoo .
And I often visited Chicago – guess what the opinion oh him is there…
Do you think if i relocates to Alabama my ideas will be changed? But then again, I spent a lot of time in Atlanta, and Dallas too.. guess it may depend on something else than proximity to big city life.
So you have never lived anywhere where Democrats did not make up less than 70% of the population and Republicans were an endangered species ?
You have spent your life in a bubble.
I can always count on you to jump to incorrect conclusions.
I lived for 7 years north of Syracuse, in semi rural Constanta NY, a Conservative Republican stronghold, as is most of upstate New York. My father-in-law, a Carrier engineer and ex WWII US military Air Force hero [ shot down twice, multiple medals) was more Conservative than Barry Goldwater. When I first moved to California, it was Orange County Republican Dana Point, adjacent to San Clemente, home to Richard Nixon. My present home is near Griffith Park, where the previous City Councilman was a many time re-elected Republican. And for some years I was a member of the Republican dominated Lions Club where Democrats were fewer in number than vegetarians (our lunch meetings were regularly held at local steak restaurants.)
And in fact I personally did not vote for a Democrat for office for three decades until RUMPHEAD was nominated by the Goofy Old Party this last election.
My conclusions are based on the evidence you supplied.
Regardless, I commented on you – not your father.
Further you are now saying that you have spent your life living in urban areas that “used to be republican”. Go back far enough in time and every major city “used to be republican”.
The left makes a big deal that GDP in democratic districts greatly exceeds republicans ones.
Forgetting that most wealthy democratic districts became wealthy when they were republican.
and currently poor republican districts were poor democratic districts not very long ago.
Nixon BTW was a progressive. Few of his acheivements are anything any conservative or libertarian would have take pride in.
I am very near a “tee totaller”.
While I like wine, it does not like me. My entire biological family has either gastric or intestinal issues – or both. I was fortunate that I did not develop any until I had my gall bladder removed.
But today more than 1/4 glass of wine gives my hours of heart burn.
And I just do not like wine enough for that.
Sorry to hear that Dave.
Guess Whiskey in a glass never made a horse’s ass out of you.
But you could always light up a joint for reminiscence and relaxation 🤪
Life is not perfect – it is still good.
I miss Pizza more than wine and sometimes eat it despite being near absolutely guaranteed to get horrible heart burn. I do not enjoy alcohol enough to tolerate the heartburn.
I also love music. I wish I could play an instrument but it is not one of my skills.
I pretty much got that no amount of practice was ever going to give me the skills with an instrument I want when my 4yr old son (now 18) was playing the piano better in 2 hours than I had been able to with two years of lessons.
We are not equal. We are not the same.
I am very very good at somethings and abysmal at others.
Being good at somethings does nto make me better than others.
Being bad at others does nto make me worse.
I am not a shitty person because I am poor at music.
I am not a great one because I am good at logic,
I have lots of things that many others do not have.
And lots of problems that many others do not have.
Life is good.
When I can legally do so,. I will light up my first joint.
Sanity from the left on free speech.
Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee
Does not work.
What freedom you are unwilling to allow those you hate or those who hate,
you do not have yourself.
http://prospect.org/article/forgotten-origins-constitution-on-campus
Nazi’s everywhere! Oh, my!
In interesting article about presidential transitions – particularly the hoover-roosevelt one.
I found the facts fascinating. Though the articles author seemed to be clueless.
She finds FDR’s unwillingness to participate in policy making during the transition a less for future presidents – but completely misses something that both Hoover and FDR fully grasped – that after the election Hoover was nearly powerless to make policy on his own.
This it the lesson that Obama should have learned. Trumps transition activities were to thwart policy CHANGES that Obama could constitutionally – but not legitimately make.
I have never been impressed by Hoover, despite his own faith in himself, he was truly little different from FDR in policy – nearly every major New Deal program was born in the Hoover administration – again something the author was clueless about.
Just as the story about Candidate Nixon tanking the Paris peace talks has been debunked many times – and still the left buys it.
Regardless, Hoovers deprecating commonets about FDR prooved true, he was absolutely clueless about monetary policy and blundered it badly.
But Hoover should not be crowing, as he did too.
The garbage claim about trading at the margins causing the great depression is about as much nonsense as FDR’s belief that it was tractors and over production.
The Great Depression was caused by much the same monetary mistakes during the 20’s – particularly under Hoover as caused the housing bubble and financial collapse.
It is probable that by the time FDR took office that a very serious recession was already present – but the transition for a deep and proably short recession to the great depression was the consequence of policies conceived by Hoover and implimented by FDR.
It was Hoover and FDR’s activism that damned us into a depression – not Hoover’s alleged passivism. Contrary to the high school text picture of Hoover – he was a republican PROGRESSIVE – quite radically different from Harding and Coolidge his predecessors.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/lessons-from-an-unseemly-presidential-transitionfrom-hoover-to-fdr
So the government is required by law to disclose bonuses – and it discloses about 300M out of 1.5B in bonuses.
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/12/29/mapping_the_swamp_federal_bonus_payments_in_2016.html
More
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-swamp-trump-is-trying-to-drain-isnt-really-a-swamp-its-an-ocean/
A good article about Trump’s attacks on the FBI by a retired FBI agent.
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/366594-donald-trump-is-not-attacking-the-fbi-even-as-he-attacks-the-fbi
What does it take to end the nonsensical claim that MW increases do not have negative effects ?
The paper below addresses the back and forth since 1990.
The gist is simple – every claim that MW increases are harmless is theoretical, and generally on bad theory. Every actual study that has found MW increases harmless has relatively quickly been debunked – often with the same data from the study.
The more recent results from Seatlle are damning.
But we never should have had this idiotic discussion in the first place.
The idiocy that you can increase wages without consequence is trivially refutable by reductio ad absurdem – a rule of logic not economics.
AND by the laws of supply and demand.
Lest you think those are fungible ALL economics rests on them – even Keynes.
I have not read much Marx recently, but I would be surprised if even Marx tried to claim theuy were inoperable.
Demand curves slope down to the right. This is an immutable law of economics.
As prices rise demand falls.
Complex regulation can sometimes distort the precise way this happens, but it still happens.
The negative impact of floors on prices will always show up somewhere.
Pretending we are smarter than we are does not make it so.
Click to access regulation-v40n4-6.pdf
Uh-oh, I’ve been shut out of my own website! I tried to start a new column, and the administrative link (for adding new posts, checking stats, etc.) was nowhere to be found. I think WordPress still has my old e-mail address; I didn’t give them my new one because I would have been bombarded with comment notifications 24/7. I’ll get to the bottom of this, but it looks as if December’s entry will have to wait until January. Sorry about that.
In any case, happy New Year to you argumentative, zany, brilliant, indispensable New Moderate regulars!
And yes, this is Rick.
Happy New Year, Fearless Anonymous Leader!
Reciprocal greetings to you Rick..
And isn’t it wonderful that tRUMP made it possible for us to say Happy New Year Again!
😊😏😎
HNY, Rick, if you are really Rick and not some Russian bot.
I still say computers will ultimately drive all of us insane and could lead us to be like the Marquis de Sade, writing on our dwelling walls with excrement.
Something burped yesterday – I had to re-login to discuss which I have not had to do in over a year.
Who’s the Meathead?
In under 17 Hours 50,000people agreed that tRUMP is ‘a sick ignoramus.’
No good deed goes unpunished, Jay. Trump gives the NYT a free-ranging interview, speaks honestly and straightforwardly about a variety of issues, and gets the usual treatment from those on the left, who know next to nothing about those issues.
I have to laugh at someone like Rob Reiner calling Trump a “sick ignoramus” for saying that he controls the DOJ, when that Trump is absolutely correct. If you work in the DOJ, you work for the President, and he has complete constitutional authority to issue orders and/or to fire any one in that department. Same with the FBI
Trump’s point was that he has chosen NOT to fire Mueller. But, sick ignoramuses like Reiner are too stupid to get the point.
And your boy Adam Schiff says that the DOJ “belongs to the American people.” Actually, the American people elected Trump to run the DOJ. But Schiff is apparently unaware of those basic constitutional issues…….
Fore!
Aww, the little Trump golf ball guy… Keep dreaming, Jay, visions of collusion dancing in your head!
Sure he can fire Mueller.
I’d like to see him do it on a Sunday:
Sunday Night Slaughter has a nice ring to it.
Better than Saturday Night Massacre.
And blood WOULD follow.
The anger for tRUMP is palpable.
Nixon to his credit was steeped in government and its history; he realized he had to go, and did with some grace. Realizing he didn’t belong there any longer,he stepped down.
President Turd hasn’t a clue about the propriety of presidencial behavior. A reality-show host real-estate promoter with the rectitude of a self promoting midway huxter, he’d preside with relish over the bloodshed that would follow a Mueller firing. The WWF come full cycle. Bluster Theatre become Reality.
Trump never should have allowed an SC to be appointed – as you do not seem to grasp he controls that.
But he is unlikely to fire Mueller – however the U1 and Hezbolla investigations could well entangle Mueller – as a witness and as a target and that would require him to recuse himself – but then that was already required.
You complain about The right – but what was going on in the FBI/DOJ is WORSE THAN NIXON.
In the event Mueller starts into the RNC – it is EXACTLY like Nixon – except that Mueller is doing it under the color of law – which makes it WORSE.
Lets look at Watergate – it is well known by now that one of the employees of the DNC Watergate offices was also doing booking for a Brothel accross the street.
It is that person whose phone was tapped.
It John Mitchell had gotten the FBI to tap the phones – by the garbage Mueller and the left is doing that would have been legal.
You do not seem to understand that you can not use the power of government to spy on your political opponent – not even to try and catch them in a crime.
Nixon resigned because Barry Goldwater told him he was going to lose the vote in the Senate after the House voted for impeachment.
There is no tradition here – no president had ever resigned before.
Though plenty were entangled in dubious actions. LBJ was far dirtier than Nixon.
Whatever “the propriety of presidencial behavior” is – it is your problem.
There is no constitutional requirement to resign over it – whatever it is.
I think bing caught getting blow jobs from an intern in the oval office and lying under oath about it are far greater violations of “the propriety of presidencial behavior”.
I am pretty sure I can find some pretty egregious personal misconduct on the part of Kennedy.
Not to mention getting Diem executed which was the last reasonable chance of holding South Vietnam together.
Regardless, everyone knew what they were getting. Trump did not hide who he was when he ran.
As far as I am concerned we got better than I expected.
The big gripe I have is this entire Russia nonsense.
I argued here that Obama should have pardoned Clinton and staff, that if he did not Trump should have.
Now I wish he had prosecuted.
If the left wants to hunt snipes – then as far as I am concerned Trump should get the DOJ/FBI into “big game hunting” and Hillary is just the start. There is REAL EVIDENCE to investigate half of top Clinton staff.
Regardless, this is not a game you want to be playing.
The left went nuclear in the senate first – and the results have come back to haunt it.
Republican politicians overall are not too Trump happy, but I have no doubt they will be happy to go after the next democrat using these some nonsensical tactics, demanding a special Prosecutor for a non-crime.
At this point we need multiple serious investigations into the Obama Administration – not so much to jail people, as to make sure this kind of garbage never happens again.
Trump is not gonna fire Mueller, Jay, no matter how badly you and the entire progressive left want him to. The longer Mueller’s investigation goes on, the more Congress is finding out how biased and corrupt it is. Mueller is doing more to expose corruption in the FBI and the DOJ than he is finding any Russian collusion by the Trump campaign.
“I’d like to see him do it on a Sunday:
Sunday Night Slaughter has a nice ring to it.
Better than Saturday Night Massacre.
And blood WOULD follow.
The anger for tRUMP is palpable.”
The anger against Trump by people like you has always been palpable ~ that won’t change. For the rest of us, the Mueller investigation is just a political witch hunt, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Trumps approval has risen 5 pts in the past week, His Strony disapproval has declined by two points
I am sure that will remain volatile, but as Trump/Russia dies and as more and more about the problems with Mueller/DOJ.FBI comes out or sinks in, and as more and more malfeasance of the Obama administration is exposed,
Trumps support will improve.
FURTHER the way that the left has structured this “there can be only one” Improvements in Trump’s support come at the expense of the already poor support for the media, democrats and the left.
Couple this with an improving economy and an increase in take home pay for 80% of us starting in a few days and This democratic Tsunami looks like a fiction.
The media and the left have the ability to shape public oppinion – without regard for reality or truth – but absent underlying support from facts and reality that effort ultimately fails.
Further when you push against reality to bring things down – you get bitch slapped in the face by reality.
Good post.
All of this is con law 101. All the powers of the executive branch are fully vested in the president.
That is the constitution.
It is even arguable that congress can not make laws that restrain the president for executing powers that are solely his.
Jay, if you believe anyone but a far left progressive socialist would follow Rob Reiner and not agree with him with likes,shares and retweets, then I would say that your the meathead.
Amazing! 50k far left progressive socialists were lurking, waiting for Rob’s tweet.
Do you think a far left progressive socialist party would outdraw the Libertarian Party in elections?
I would not say they were lurking. Less than 20% of his followers responded, so it appears he has less approval in this requested case than Trump.
The question concerning a socialist candidate outdrawing a Libertarian. Yes, a known progressive socialist would outdraw someone like Gary Johnson who received 4+ million votes. I would think Sanders or Warren, if they ran as a third party progressive socialist party candidate would draw better than Ross Perot as a percent of the vote. I would predict 25 million or close to that voting for a third party progressive candidate, especially if it were against an establishment Democrat and Trump
Common Ron, you’re gettin testy.
That’s a lot of responses in that time frame for an actor’s acct.
Jay, are you really saying you do not think 18% of his followers are not going to check their phones in 17 hours. Most people can’t even take a dump without checking their phones these days. Watch some of the bowl games and a large percent of attendees have their noses stuck in their phones and not watching the game.
No I’m not testy, I just know probably 150,000 or more of his followers saw that tweet within 17 hours and all you need to do is touch the screen to agree.
Trump (another actor) gets 50K likes pretty much every time he posts.
I like Reiner’s work, I like DiCaprio’s work, I like Polanski’s work, I like Spacey’s work.
I do not treat any of them as behavioral, moral or political guides.
I support some of what Trump has done as president.
That does not mean I condone everything he says, or everything he does.
I do not need to agree with someone on everything to value dome of their accomplishments.
You can not compare a 3rd party candidate to someone running as a democrat or republic to determine the ideological support in the country.
Johnson far exceeded Stein. That is the appropriate comparision.
I am not sure if Sanders would have done better than Johns running as an actual independent.
Rand Paul is not my perfect Libertarian – but he is pretty good over all.
I would love to see him as president and I expect he will run again.
But The 2016 campaign revealed that he doesn’t have the “fire in the belly” necessary to win a presidential election. I think if he did he would be a very very serious contender.
Regardless if you wish to compare socialists (lite) sign as Sanders or Warren running as Democrats, then you need to compare them to libertarian (lite) running as Republicans.
Though really getting apples to apples comparisons is very hard.
Given that Clinton managed 65M votes – I think Reinher can manage 50K likes.
“Amazing! 50k far left progressive socialists were lurking, waiting for Rob’s tweet.”
Rob Reiner has 285,000 Twitter followers, the vast majority of whom are far left progressives. So, yep, I guess they were…..
The US is not a democracy. I think that establishes who the “meathead” is .
Jay, thought you would like to see some info from a more nonpolitical source.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_dec29
In the election following Obamas first year, the GOP gained 63 house seats and 6 senate seats. I doubt anything like that could happen in 2018 due to redistricting, but 2006 could be repeated when 30 house seats changed and 6 senate seats changed. This would give democrats congressional control and deadlocked legislation. House Democrats will pass every unpopular liberal leaning program legislation to the senate and much of it requiring 60 votes will get 55 to 56 and not move forward. If it does pass the senate Trump will veto it.
The first two bills Pelosi will get passed is repeal of the repeal of the requirement everyone buys health insurance and a roll back on tax decreases for upper income classes and SALT deductions. That will set the confrontational environment for the next two years ( if it can get any worse).
Most studies of “gerrymandering’ have concluded that nationwide the effect is less than a net of 5 house seats one way or the other.
The past volatitily to house seats is primarily due to the large number of districts that were “pink’ AND because the south has not been reliably republican at all levels until very recently.
“the great sorting” is nearly complete. The consequence of that is that there are more and more districts that are Red or Blue.
2019 will tell if I am right – but I think it would take far more than what we have now to shift 60 seats in the house either direction.
Next, you can not gerrymander the senate. based on the states – red/pink/purple/blue Republicans should have very close to 66 Senate seats.
The 2018 map is very very very favorable to republicans in the Senate.
The odds are 50:50 that republicans will pick up two seats.
The odds of democrats picking up more than two are nil.
Should republicans improve their standing as much from dec-nov in 2018 as they did in 2014
It is democrats who should be very worried.
I know I am alone in this, but I think with a strong economy and the death of Trump>Russia,
you coulds see a republican Tsunami in 2018 Not a democratic one.
There is only one significant factor I am seeing possibly working against Republicans.
That is that the 2017 elections in my state showed a very big pro woman swing.
Both republicans and democrat woman won in unusual numbers.
That slightly favored democrats.
Republicans need to be very careful about the woman’s vote in 2018.
Trump is NOT appealing to women.
While democrats and hollywood have severely tarnished the lefts relationship with women.
It does nto take too many Trump’s and Moore’s to balance an army of harrassers on the left.
The left always hypocritically gives its own a pass for misconduct, and it gets away with it.
Well well well!
Not only an aHOLE but a rip off plagiarist too
This is really getting to be like kindergarten kids. So he tweeted something his staff wrote. BFD!!!!
First the president is a liar – because he and the press secretary do nto say exactly the same thing about Comey’s firing, now he is a plagarist because they do say exactly the same thing ?
You do know Who SarahSanders works for ? Hint, it is not Bernie.
Shove this up your Dossier Doubletalk Doubting, Donnie!
“What so alarmed American officials to provoke the F.B.I. to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?
It was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.”
Goldberg and briefly McCarthy have been hooked by the idiotic idea that if DOJ/FBI are stonewalling it must be because Trump wants them too.
It is because they are protecting themselves.
Trump has been deliberately cautious about giving any directions to the DOJ ro FBI in anything related to this investigation – because the left views his looking funny at Sessions as “Obstruction of justice”
Regardless, large swaths of the executive particuilarly the DOJ/FBI have made it clear they do not think they take orders from Trump, and are not listening.
When information that should be made available to congress and possibly the public is not being made available right now, in all cases it has turned out to be because it embarrasses or implicates current or former DOJ/FBI people in corruption.
It took almost 6 months for Congress to get any information on Strzok – and when it finally did it helped Trump and implicated the DOJ/FBI/Mueller and Clinton.
Right now unusually it is a good bet that when the rest of the executive is witholding something – they are witholding it from Trump as well.
BTW Trump has tweeted asking these things released.
Coincidence right?
If you can find a conspiracy in that – it is time to check on your tinfoil.
Regardless – if Australia and the UK are reporting to the CIA about nominal Trump aides being catfished by an english professor pretending to be Russia, then
I do not have a problem with Trump reaming out the Australian PM – if that actually happened.
Short of calling him Batsht Crazy, this is as close to it as Admeral Mullen could get on national TV
Mullin is retired and has been for a long time. He teaches – I believe at Princeton.
He was chairman of JCS during the period in which our global prestige went to hell.
If you beleive that the Obama era was an era of vast improvement in the US international relations than Mullin is someone whose view you should take very seriously.
If you do not – then Mullin’s critiques are proof that something is wrong and needs fixing and that the status quo is fighting back.
This is “laughably” desparate ?
Lets assume this story is correct.
You are then saying that the FBI began investigating Trump because some guy who most of the Trump campaign pretty much ignored, thought he was communicating with someone with Ties to Russia, but was actually being lead on by a nutcase professor in london with no known ties to anyone offering garbage.
Essentially you are saying that not only did Papadoulis’s fake russian contact hook him, but he also hooked the British and the FBI and the CIA and the Intelligence community.
While gross incompetence is a far better defense than political corruption.
It does not help you much.
Papadoulis can cooperate until the cows come home.
He had minimal contact with The Trump campaign and no contact with russia – not even indirectly.
He was being played – he was engaged in a snipe hunt.
Regardless, do you read the articles you link to ?
I have no problems cleaning house at the top of the US intelligence community and the FBI because they are incompetent if that is the basis you want to go with.
Look:a Moderate tRUMP Supporter.
I knew they were out there!
https://twitter.com/sheriffclarke/status/947225820493426688
Under a Twitter guideline, promoting violence like this should initiate suspension of his account.
Any odds on that happening?
I am far more conscerned that Social Media is becoming a tool for governnent censorship – this is the consequence that is inevitable from your Russia/Facebook garbage.
As to Clarks remarks – Twitter can do as it pleases. They did not suspend Rosie O’Ddonell for her remarks to Ben Shapiro but they have suspended many on the right for far less.
I am primarily interested in the legal issues.
Clark’s remarks do not constitute “true threats”. There is recent SCOTUS case law on social media threats. – the gist is they are considered free speach.
Not a clarke fan.
At the same time I would note that you have another pretty strange guy actually one the Trump bandwagon doing fine.
Here is another – and he makes alot of points.
Trump owns space in your head Jay.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/12/28/trump-ends-2017-residing-in-his-enemies-heads-n2427402
OK, enlighten me, Defenders Of tRUMP Actions.
Why would he make a statement like this, when it so easy to verify it’s false?
Because politicians brag and like to hear themselves talk. And wise people ignore that.
Do you need a similar list of Obama bragging ? Or can we just move on to something of substance ?
Trump bragging and exagerating is not news.
It is a reason to take what he says with a grain of salt – but between Trump, the media, and you my salt intake is through the roof.
I would like to address something else. I had to look into the requirements for perjury a while back for something else.
Those requirements are relavant to things Trump lies constantly nonsense.
For something to be perjry there are alot of requirements,
The statement must not only be false but knowingly false,
But there is much more than that – it must be something that was relied on and had a probablity of producing an error as the outcome.
The point is that all misstatements are not the same.
It would be nice if we were all perfectly accurate about everything all the time.
Some of us actually try. Many of us do not.
You can accurately call many of Trump’s remark’s lies – but when you do so, you make alot of your own remarks lies also .
So think about it – What is the harm to most of Trump’s error ?
Is the world going to change because Trump did not sign more laws ?
What about “you can keep your insurance” or you can keep your doctor, or the average family will save 2500/year ?
If Trump says something inaccurately that you rely on to your clear harm – that is serious.
If Trumps says “I have big hands” the world will not be harmed because he is wrong.
Because he’s a blowhard, Jay. He exaggerates things all the time. It’s one of the things that drives people crazy about him.
At the 100 day mark, Trump had, in fact, broken a record for bills signed into law during that period. Someone obviously told him that, and he’s been trumpeting it ever since, inspiring a gazillion fact checks saying that he’s wrong. And, I’m sure he doesn’t care, as long as his main point gets out there ~ that point being “Hey, no matter what the media tells you, I’m getting a lot done.”
And, as Dave points out, he hasn’t lied about the kinds of things that Obama lied about ~ “if you like your doctor/health plan, you can keep your doctor/ health plan” was easily the most significant, intentional lie of the century, and basically led to the Democrat Party losing the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Trump has a long way to go before he can claim a lie as big as that one.
“Because he’s a blowhard, Jay. He exaggerates things all the time. It’s one of the things that drives people crazy about him.”
So you’ve decided to ignore his “exaggerations” even though they negatively distort the national discourse? What lends you to believe the blowhard’s distorted rhetoric doesn’t negatively effect governance for the nation?
Ignoring his propensity to constantly spew bullshit is like trying to ignore constant flatulence in confined spaces. You may become immune or indifferent to the farting smells, but that doesn’t lessen the stink. But you don’t even want to yell “Open the damn window, we’re choaking!”
“And, as Dave points out, he hasn’t lied about the kinds of things that Obama lied about ~ “if you like your doctor/health plan, you can keep your doctor/ health plan” was easily the most significant, intentional lie of the century, and basically led to the Democrat Party losing the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.”
Oh please! You need to rescrew your head on properly.
If youre in dire need of medical help, what’s worse: you can’t get your original doctor, or you can’t get ANY doctor because you’ve been bumped from Obamacare, or it’s no longer available?
And Merry Happy New Year, Priscilla.
I’m going to start it off for you on a positive note of love and good cheer: world leaders embracing in affection!
The theme of your entire discourse is that words are far more important than actions.
I do not care that CNN and MSNBC are highly biased.
While I know that the reinforce those living in the bubble and possibly make them more extreme.
I accept that people are responsible for their own views.
That when you vote for Trump, or Hillary or whoever, that you made YOUR choice.
That all the “influences” on you are just that “influences” they are not guns to your head, They are not force, and that none of us have the right or the power to control what people hear – their “influences”.
But your argument about Trump is – we must shut him up because what he says is wrong and “influences” people. We must shut russia up because what they say is wrong and “influences” people. Twitter and Facebook must shutdown voices I do not like because they “influence” people.
Your objective is to control what people hear – and therefore what people say.
All this pivots arround the point I have been trying to make regarding Trump/Russian influence.
Though I think the claims are ludicrously overblown, even if Russian “influence” really and trule was the pivot point of this election, There is nothing wrong, there is nothing you can do about it.
Any of us are free to try to “influence” others with our words.
This is also why I keep identifying you with the left.
While I have not memorized them, I know you have presented purpoted bonafides that you have opposed the left on issues in the past.
I do not memorize your positions – because they are self contradictory and inconsistent.
and impossible to structure into a coherent framework.
But what is absolutely consistent is that there is no difference between your current posts and the nonsense that is going on on our campuses. You may not think of yourself as part of this post modern far left garbage – but you are parroting their core themes.
That speach is violence.
That some things are so wrong and hurful they can not be said
But most important of all – that there is some right to silence others.
That silencing voices that offend you is not only a good thing – but one that is actually possible.
The only nations that temporarily successfully silence any voices – are totalitarian states.
Hilter, Stalin, Mao, and now Chavez/Madoro and Iran.
Is that really who you are? Because that is where your arguments lead.
You can not seem to grasp the difference between
Trump is wrong – and here is what is right
and
Trump must be silenced by whatever means necescary
Trump was elected. He was elected for many reasons – but one of those is because he speaks for alot of people whose voices have not been heard. Who the left has spent decades trying to silence, and who the right has mostly ignored.
Trump is not the first to speak for them. But he is the most successful and the loudest voice.
And you do not get that when you respond to Trump with insult rather than argument – your get two results.
You get insults back.
You further alienate those he speaks for.
I do not agree with Trump on many issues.
I do not agree on immigration as an example, but I agree that a open public discussion is needed, and that what we have been doing does not work. That we can do better.
I do not agree with Trump on Free Trade
But I am not afraid of open discussion about Trade.
You “influence” people with arguments. You do not get to shut down the discussion.
That is what totalitarians do.
That is what the left is trying to do now.
That is what you are trying to do.
“So you’ve decided to ignore his “exaggerations” even though they negatively distort the national discourse? ”
No, of course not. I called him a blowhard ~ that’s not a compliment. But it’s not a crime against humanity either. I’d rather have a blowhard in the office than a stone cold liar like Obama, who did not tell the truth about the government takeover of healthcare, who weaponized the federal bureaucracy against his political enemies and spied on them, who stabbed Israel in the back and secretly negotiated with world’s largest state sponsor of terror, and sent it – literally – pallets of cash, who called a deserter a hero and traded 5 terrorist leaders for his sorry ass….I could go on, but you get the point.
“What lends you to believe the blowhard’s distorted rhetoric doesn’t negatively effect governance for the nation?”
Are you serious? You think our government is so fragile that Trump’s exaggerated claims of how much legislation has been passed this year is going to negatively affect it? Come on. Criticize him, yes, but don’t get hysterical about it.
“If youre in dire need of medical help, what’s worse: you can’t get your original doctor, or you can’t get ANY doctor because you’ve been bumped from Obamacare, or it’s no longer available?”
Go to the emergency room any day of the week. You will see dozens of Medicaid and Obamacare patients who cannot get doctors to treat them. The repeal of the mandate just gets rid of the penalty for not buying a useless plan.
“And Merry Happy New Year, Priscilla.
I’m going to start it off for you on a positive note of love and good cheer: world leaders embracing in affection!”
Merry Happy New Year to you too, Jay. Or as your favorite pRESIDENT would say, “It’s gonna be a great year! The best ever, in recorded history! It’s gonna be YUGE! You will love me even more than you do now!”
What does it take for you to get that this witchhunt into social media is a horrible bad terrible no good idea that ends badly ?
I am troubled by Facebooks own private censorship of anything. But the consequence for that is to protest or boycott facebook.
But it is absolutely wrong for any government – ours or that of Israel to be leveraging social media providors to secure government censorship by proxy.
Dave in regard to Facebook and government censorship, I have commented many times here that we are losing rights like the frogs in a pot of cold water with the flame heating the pot. They are cooked before they realize the water is too hot.
But the American sheeple that accept this like they are accepting other restrictions to our constitutional rights will not do anything until it is too late.
If Facebook wants to restrict access to their website, that is their right. The U.S. government should be blocked from making Facebook do this, but somehow they will find some loophole in some law that allows them to do it.
And when will negative comments about Democrats or Republicans be banned?
As for Israel, thats something Facebook, Israel and the citizens of that country need to work out.
Ron
We are in agreement but I was trying to address a different facet of this.
Our govenrment (or any other) explicitly asking Facebook to censor – is wrong and evil.
But it is also wrong when the effort is implicit. or something in between.
We have congress holding hearings on “russian influence” in social media postings and threatening regulation if these companies do not clean up their act.
Those hearings should never occur. Those threats never should have been made.
Facebook is a business – expecting it will standing up to government threats is ludicroulsy stupid and dangerous.
It is very very rare that businesses fight for our freedom. Businesses want the friendliest possible relationship with government. They are more affraid of government than consumers.
I do not care much if people demand Facebook self censor.
I can go elsewhere, and absent government my choices will influence facebook.
But people or politicians demanding that Facebook self censor – that is immoral and evil.
And ends badly.
McCarthy compare/contrast some parts of the Mueller investigation with that of Clinton.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455020/hillary-clinton-server-emails-erased-technician-should-be-pressured
Here is Pres. Obama on Oct 18, 2016 telling us all that there is no possible way to rig a US election.
This is during the time frame that according to the left and the media the administration is convinced that Russia is trying to do exactly that.
Either Obama was lying then, or those claiming the election was rigged are lying now.
I would suggest that Obama is actually telling the truth.
But to the left the truth is situational. Elections are only sacred, safe and secure so long as the they think they are winning.
When they are losing or have lost – then they are rigged.
Roy Moore is busy whining in Alabama. Those on the left whining about “russian influence” are no different than moore – except that Moore has more evidence for his lunatic claims than you do.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/obama-trumps-rigged-election-claim-whining-before-the-games-even-over/index.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-warns-protesters-pay-price-unrest-turn-deadly-073258455.html
In Iran right now people are taking to the streets at great personal peril for Freedom.
For the freedom to dress as they wish – among other freedoms.
They are willing to die for the freedom to dress as they wish.
They are not risking death for universal health care.
They are risking death – to be free to dress as they like.
Many of them are going to be jailed, some are going to die.
Maybe they will succeed, maybe they will fail.
Regardless they are prepared to die for a small amount of freedom.
This is not pink pussy hats protesting Trump.
This is real people taking real risks for a small amount of freedom.
The reality of “economic exploitation” of the poor.
What does it take to stop people from harming people trying to improve their lives by claiming to help them ?
http://humanprogress.org/blog/student-activists-hurt-the-workers-they-try-to-help?utm_content=buffer27245&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Research indicating that:
increasing diversity leads to increased polarization.
Increasing polarization leads to BETTER debate, more focused, longer and better results.
Who would have though – almost 200 years later John Stuart Mill would still be right.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/12/21/research-summary-the-wisdom-of-polarized-crowds/
Actually it is worse than this tweet suggests.
Not only does the NYT “fake news” story presume that papadoulis being catfished was so significant it drove the FBI and CIA, but it ignores that all of this was public in april of 2016 and the FBI did not bother to question Papadoulis until January 2017.
If anything associated with Papadoulis drive the FISA warrants – you would think that FBI would have bothered to interview Papadoulis ? there was zero risk of “alerting” him – as the story was already public.
The bottom line is this is really incredulous apologist bunkum.
And the argument seems to be devloving to the FBI was incompetent rather than politically biased. That is NOT a winning counter argument.
https://twitter.com/dmartosko/status/947477854127783938
And more.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/the-times-diversion.php?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw
Jay;
You say there was a basis for all this nonsense.
That we should Trust the Intelligence communtiy assertions that Russia was massively and dastardly pro-trump and endeavoring to tilt our elections.
That the FBI/DOJ had a legitimate basis to be investigating political candidates from the opposing party.
That the disparate handling was not evidence of very disturbing political bias.
That somewhere at the bottom of this there will be some substance.
We are nearly two years into this. As time moves forward, we get more and more NEW stories of misconduct, bias, and corruption within the prior administration.
Recently many emails from weiner’s laptop were released as a result of FOIA requests – more will be released each month.
Already we have a number of classified and highly redacted emails to-from adedin/Clinton that went from one insecure account to another over the internet.
We have evidence that Weiner himself – who had no security clearance not only had access, but actual posession of these.
Deutch was convicted merely of having classified information on a laptop in his home.
Petreaus was convicted of sharing classified information from his laptop with his biographer/paramor.
We now know that the FBI let Abedin too off using this “unintentional” standard – that does not exist in the law. Deutch did not intend to expose classified information. In fact his “exposure” was limited tot he possibility someone could have stolen his laptop from his home.
Clinton and her staff moved classified information from secure government systems to private servers on the internet and
In fact those IC reports claim that the Russian efforts to influence the election were not unusual and were not tilted in favor of one candidate.
In October 2016 Obama and the Obama administration were far more concerned that when Clinton won Trump would claim foul and was busily asserting that our elections could not be rigged or influenced.
This nonsensical “russia ate the election” story did not emerge until AFTER the election.
That also means that investigations of Trump and Trump surogates prior to the election were not driven by a serious concern regarding russian influence – because the Obama administration never beleived that, but by the hope of catching Trump doing something wrong.
Put simply the Obama administration was spying on Trump. Plain and simple.
They were not following evidence, they were hoping for evidence.
The difference between spying and investigating, is that spying is observation and prying into the affairs of another in hopes of finding useful information. Spying is illegal.
When we spy on other nations or they spy on us, the law is broken. Spies go to jail or get executed if caught – because they are committing crimes.
This is also why we do not spy on our own people.
An investigation is activity conducted within the law. It is government gathering evidence following the legitimate process that the law allows to do so. Absent pre-existing evidence of an actual crime, the law and our rights prohibit searches – because searches require warrants and warrants require crimes.
You may not have Trump’s tax returns – just because you want them. You may not have the Transition records – just because you want them.
The US government may not have Russian military plans just because it wants them.
To get such things, our spies must lie, cheat, steal, and break the law – and if they get caught they are jailed or killed.
We do not lie, cheat, steal or otherwise break the law when government looks at its own citizens.
“That we should Trust the Intelligence communtiy assertions that Russia was massively and dastardly pro-trump and endeavoring to tilt our elections.”
They didn’t say they were ‘dastardly’ pro Trump from the start.
But when it looked like he could win, they said Russia INDEED shifted into pro tRUMP mode. AND EVIDENCE RELEASED FROM MANY SOURCES VALIDATES THAT ASSESSMENT.
Right?
Jay “But when it looked like he could win, they said Russia INDEED shifted into pro tRUMP mode. AND EVIDENCE RELEASED FROM MANY SOURCES VALIDATES THAT ASSESSMENT.
Right?”
Does everyone think foreign countries have not tried to influence our elections in the past? We have infiltrated foreign country elections for years.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
Our hands are not clean either.
While I have a problem with some of what the US has done in the past.
I have absolutely ZERO problem with advocating american values world wide.
As a libertarian I do not think the US government should be interfering in foriegn countries – not even by messaging programs such as Radio Free America.
But there is a world of difference from the US government should not be spending my money to send messages to Soviets or Maoists or Cubans that I may or may not agree with, and beeliving that it is wrong to try to speak to the people in other nations.
If Russia is trying to have a voice in US elections – they are stealing from their own people.
They are NOT doing anything harmful to the US.
I do not care if Bloomburg funds speech, Steyer does, Soros does, Koch does, the DNC does, or …..
If expressing a view on politics is “influencing” an election – then it is to be encouraged, not prohibited.
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis Whitney v. California 1927.
If Russia can use social media to persuade voters to vote differently – that is fine by me.
The remedy is more speach, not less. Whatever Rusia is able to do – the rest of us are too.
Regardless, no one is holding a gun to our heads in the voting booth.
There is absolutely zero evidence that anyone involuntarily voted for Trump.
There is no evidence that any votes were changed after they were cast.
There is no evidence that there were any votes cast for Trump by dead people or people ineligable to vote.
There is not even a claim that Russia did anything that the press or Stephen Colbert did not do every day during the election.
I personally beleive that much of the Russia Social media claim is garbage.
That it is a manufactured or exagerated effort by those on the left – both in government and in social media to provide cover for future self censorship.
The left fell behind the curve in social media in 2016 and instead of catching up, they want to force a change to the rules.
I fully expect to see the 2018 election and social media run much like the IRS under Obama, with social media engaged in strong viewpoint censorship.
With the excuse that if they do not do so voluntarily the government will step in and do so by force.
If the IC had evidence from so many sources in 2016 why have the rest of us seen no evidence from any sources in what is now 2018 ?
When Bush made IC based claims regarding Iragi Nukes the press shredded that quite quickly.
Apparently the left thinks the IC is untrustworthy – except when they target Republicans.
I think the IC has had an abysmal record pretty much since the end of WWII.
For much of my lifetime the left equated anything from the IC with “lie”.
Alone in 50+ years the IC is suddenly to be trusted when AFTER the election SOME of them are suddenly saying “russia/Trump”.
BTW most of the reporting on the IC assessments is garbage – you can find plenty of video of Testimony of IC leaders like Clapper and Brennan in close proximity to the election saying that Russian involvement was not unusual and did not favor Trump.
That assessment did not change until after he won.
When the Obama Administration assessment shifts shortly after Trump’s election – things resemble much more “Andrew McCabe’s insurance policy against a Trump victory” than they do anything credible.
Please point to anything that Russia even purportedly did – I say “purported” because event eh “social media” nonsense is atleast thrice removed. Accounts created under fake names in the US that may be tied to people in eastern europe that may be tied to Russia is not credible evidence.
If republicans had said Clinton Might have sent classified emails over what might have been a private internet server that might have been erased and might have been hacked – they would have been laughed out to the country
So where is REAL evidence Jay ? Not speculation. Something that we know, not something we think we know.
So far the KNOWN facts – as opposed to speculation.
Carter Page had a few – possibly only 1 meeting with Russian businessmen about business.
Papadolis exchanged emails with some bogus professor in the UK that claimed to have russian connections.
Trump Jr. Kushner and Manafort met with Natlaia – who appears to have been trying to set them up on collusion with Fushin GPS with the offer of dirt on Clinton, that turned out to be dirt on a clinton donor and therefore nearly useless.
Some guy in DC who claimed to be affiliated with WikiLeaks gave Trump Jr. a heads up AFTER Wikipedia dumped damaging information on Clinton.
During the Transistion Flynn legitimately accepted phone calls from some foreign dignitaries – including Sislyak, during which Sislyak mentioned the sanctions, Flynn incompletely reported this to Pence, As a result of FBI spying – possibly on Flynn this discrepancy was used by Strzok, McCabe and Yates to force Flynn out.
Kushner and Flynn actively worked during the transition to thwart the lame duck Obama administrations efforts to do what pretty much no administration has ever done and make new foreign policy during their lame duck period. Specifically Kushner worked to try to Tank the Obama administrations efforts to get Israel Censured by the UN.
I beleive that is all the evidence that we have with certainty.
That there is little or no disagreement regarding.
After that we have myriads of allegations – many of which came from the Steele Dossier.
Most of which have proven false.
Thus far we have very very little that did not come from the Steele Dossier.
So why am I supposed to beleive you when you say that the Same IC that has been hacked repeatedly, the same IC that has been wrong repeatedly over the past 40 years.
The same IC that is NOT actually in consensus, the same IC that prior to the election said there is nothing here to see, suddenly immediately after the election had evidence that has never materialized ?
Who knows maybe tomorow Mueller will offer us something meaningful.
I would immaging that if any part of government actually had this mythical evidence Mueller would have been provided it by now. But of course during the same period of time numerous house and senate committes have begged for and subpeoned the same information – and as those committes pretty much leak like seives we know pretty much everything they have, and it is nothing.
So Why am I supposed to beleive that Mueller has something no one else – not even via subpeona has been able to get ?
I would further note that though most of the leaks regarding the FBI, Trump, Comey, Mueller have actually been false, there is not a thing that Mueller has done thus far that has not been leaked first – though again most Mueller stories are still false.
Anyway there are leaks that have Mueller going her or there – and in the past those have mostly been false. But there is no reumor or leak that Mueller actually has found anything yet.
If you beleive all the rumours to be True – Mueller is still looking and preparing to do stupid things.
So you say there was evidence ? WHAT EVIDENCE ?
I have relatively consistently from the begining argued that most of the allegations – even if True do not constitute and issue.
Even if Russian’s did post lots of facebook ads – I do not care. Even if they were Pro Trump – I do not care, even if Russia did hack the DNC – I do not care.
You can not convict Hillary Clinton of a crime based on the illegally obtained emails from the DNC. But you can choose not to vote for her.
No one has denied that the DNC emails were not true.
In fact all the damaging facts about Hillary have been true. the argument of the left is we can not be permitted to know the truth about Hillary – if it was obtained improperly.
If the Russians are responsible for the bad news stories about Hillary – that begs the question why the Press did not get there first ?
The press has been digging furiously with respect to Trump and BTW I WANT that.
I am not upset with the press for seeking dirt on Trump, I am not upset with them about chasing down even the most remote of rumours.
I am only upset with the press for printing the garbage of what should be recognized as failed stories. You just offered the NYT’s recent Papadoulis story – that is a bad rehash of things that have been public for almost 2 years, and that attempt to make a claim that has a self contradictory timeline and requires the FBI to either be stupid or corrupt to be true.
I do not care if the press hates Trump. I think it is a good thing for the Press ot be actively seeking dirt on the president. I wish they had done that during Obama – maybe we would have heard more about what we are only recently starting to hear.
What I care about is that when they come up with often provably false rumors – they run them anyway. And gulible people like you buy them, get incensed and outraged
So “Where’s the beaf?”
Give me something that is not “trust me” regarding the IC, the FBI, DOJ, Mueller, ….
Because get a clue – I do not trust them. And neither does most of the rest of the country.
And here we have Lindsay Graham saying the Steele dossier was the basis for the investigation and the FISA warrants.
Graham is not at the top of my list of credible people. Graham is the only republican more warmongering than Hillary.
Graham is #nevertrump though sometimes since the election he hedges his bets.
But Graham is in a position that he could actually know.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/lindsey-graham-doj-used-anti-trump-dossier-in-court.php
Dave, if you can’t trust the DOJ, who the hell can you trust? Just another example of rights dripping down the sewer of government overreach.
The problem the left faces does not change because Hillary won more popular votes.
Even if Hillary had won – having that large a portion of the country that angry with the status quo would have meant that Hillary could not govern.
This is one of the problems the left did not understand with Obama.
Winning makes you president.
It does not give you a “Mandate”
Almost everything Trump and republicans have done so far is to reduce government in some way. You do not need even majority support to do that.
However, you need supermajority support to expand the power of government.
The massacre of the left over the past decade is primarily the result of overreach.
Even republicans do not understand this. If PPACA actually had “majority support” which it never really did, that would not be a political impediment to dismembering it.
I do not know whether the 2016 election was an endorsement of Trump’s platform or a rejection of hers – which despite failing to articulate was mostly read as 4 more years of Obama.
I do not think that democrats understand right now that Trump’s or republicans unpopularity does not mean they are going to win in a wave.
I do not know what is going to happen in Nov. but I am highly suspicious that the Conventional wisdom is very wrong.
I do not think Trump or republicans are nearly as unpopular as polls show.
I think a major problem with the polls is they are trying to condense a complex multifacetted choice into a binary decision – ultimately that is what it will be – and one of the problems with our system. But I do not think a poll is the same as a vote. I think that Brexit and 2016 were trying to give us clues about that.
One of the things that profoundly effected me on Election night was:
Trump’s strategy – from the begining was blatantly to target the rust belt.
But absolutely no one thought he as sweeping the rust belt – or even getting enough of it to win.
All the analysis of Trump’s “road to victory” immediately before the election was through NH and NV.
Most projections had Clinton with a 4-6 pt lead throughout the rust belt.
Until PA came in for Trump I still thought he needed NV and NH.
There is a big difference between knowing what his strategy was and beleiving he was anywhere near close to pulling it off.
Regardless, the point is the pundits misread people, the polls misread people, the democrats misread people – and still are.
Overall I do not think polls 9 months from the election mean alot.
Regardless, I am deeply suspicious that 2018 is not going as pundits predict either.
Dave “Almost everything Trump and republicans have done so far is to reduce government in some way. You do not need even majority support to do that.”
But why is he not directing the DOJ to investigate the dossier issues and some of the other issues that keep coming up about the FBI not doing their job. That does not increase the size of government! I am beginning to believe there is really something Trump needs to hide and he won’t open another can of worms that would come down on him. I am beginning to believe he is hoping that Mueller overlooks something or someone falls on their sword for him.
There is only two reasons why he or congress would not go full steam ahead to find out what was going on with this issue that Graham has brought up. One, it is completely Fake News and the GOP only keeps bringing on mouth pieces to talk shows to make the real story less interesting or the real story is very detrimental to Trump and he does not want anyone else poking around in his life before the election.
And if there are enough people that begin believing what I believe now, then your prediction of a republican honeymoon continuing is also a figment of ones imagination.
Because Sessions has recused himself from all things Russia.
Because Rosenstein is in the pre-election stuff up to his ass and is protecting his ass.
Because DOJ is not going to listen to him anyway.
Because his lawyers have likely advised him to stay as far away from DOJ as possible.
Andrew McCarthy made this Trump has something hide argument before, but backed away from it . Now Turley and a larger body of others realize DOJ/FBI are currently acting on their own/
Though I really think he needs to fire alot of people – that can wait.
My guess is that Trump KNOWS there is no collusion and nothing that can bite him in the ass.
He is better off with things going as they are and staying on the outside sniping in.
The more DOJ/FBI obstructs and hedges the more obvious it becomes they are corrupt.
Trump does not need to solve this quickly – it is actually better for him for this to take a while.
For Mueller to Fizzle and for DOJ/FBI to slow roast themselves.
Congress is going “full steam” – they are just getting stonewalled by the DOJ/FBI.
This is the same as under Obama – until Congress is ready to put some people into the capital jail (yes there is one), there is no penalty for the DOJ/FBI stonewalling.
(2nd Try)
Happy New Year From Bollywood
(And from me too)
Trump promises not to lie for the first seven seconds of the New Year.
I believe him Have a Happy.
Some advice form Madonna and the right – but you need to read to the end
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-big-beautiful-trump-2018-issue-1514499989?shareToken=st4eb1c14a7cc245b9a57fac952057be9d&reflink=article_email_share
I disagree with Turley on a few points.
2018 starts with the left having LOST ground against Trump.
It was plausible for that on the left to have credible hopes that something might be found.
Today those hopes are no longer plausible. The left is dreaming of unicorns.
I also disagre with Turley on obstruction – yes a president can commit Obstruction – but not in any actions consistent with his role as president. While those screaming obstruction can not meet Turley’s insistance that a proceeding must exist, and none did, I think that is a bit technical.
Trump can not be charged with something that a prosecutor could not also be charged with – because even Mueller’s power is ultimately derived from Trump’s.
If Mueller can excersize discretion than so can Trump.
Had Trump actually directed Comey not to persue Flynn, that would not be obstruction, it would have been a legitimate command of the President that Comey was bound to obey.
Only congress can judge the president excercise of powers given him by the constitution,
An excellent article about what is wrong with our kids today by Prof. Haidt.
But I would suggest those here read it for more than what is wrong with kids.
Those of us over 40 have probably not been screwed up by our parents.
But we could well be doing it to ourselves.
Think about some things in this article – freedom is in our genes. Aparently it is even in the genes of Hippo’s and Gazelle. It is sufficiently important that other animals risk death for the benefits of freedom. It is critical to growing up, to becoming adults to our ability to learn and function in the world.
Freedom is dangerous and means tripping and falling and failing. but it ends up making us stronger.
I am reading Taleeb’s “antifragile”.
One of the things that distinguishes living creatures from everything else is that we are in some ways “antifragile”.
We need stress and failure to thrive and grow.
If a robot breaks – it is broken – someone else must repair it and it will likely be weaker than before. The same is true of all machinery.
Humans often grow, improve get better as a result of their mistakes and failures.
Not all mistakes and failures, but many.
Without some stresses we are weaker and grow less.
The air quality in our homes has become so good that an enormous percent of kids develop asthma – because they were not exposed to “toxins” when young.
We are living longer, but at the same time we are more coddled and less exposed to anything even slightly dangerous and that makes us weaker, fatter, out of shape.
Several here are whigging out over Trump – as has been said by others – Trump exaggerates it is not an endearing trait.
It is also not the “trumpocalypse” !
Are we so fragile that we go apolplectic and foam and spew spittle because of what Trump tweets each day ?.
It is highly unlikely that the next Trump tweet will end the world.
It is highly unlikely it will matter at all in our lives.
Trump is actually slowly trying to do something incredibly important – though he has a long long way to go. He is slowly trying to transform government so that it is focused on what we need from it – and that is not very much at all. So that in the future – our problems are our own – in our own lives, not some issues that must be address collectively by our government.
Government is not very good at what we need it do to.
It is horrible at those things that some of us think we want it to do.
Worse still it is those things that demand constant attention.
We have SS and Medicare needing repairs, and who knows if they will get done.
But even if we fix them, a few decades later – they will need repairs again.
Everything more than it needs that government does requires constant tinkering and because it is government doing it, it requires acrimonious public debate.
We are fighting over borders and immigration now! Why do we care ?
If someone can find their way here – why can’t they come ?
So long as stepping inside our borders creates no positive obligations on the rest of us – why do we care ?
If Mexicans want to come and work on US farms for $1/hr – why do I care ?
Why do we say no – you can only work if you are paid $7.25/hr, if you are provided social security and medicare and unemployment and healthcare and ……
Once we commit ourselves to assuring that everyone is entitled to something – we are then forced to ration it. We can not afford to offer it to everyone – that alone should make it clear it is not a right ?
Anyway back to the point – Freedom is a human need. Without it we grow weak.
Kids, adults, the same.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/26/the-fragile-generation
Dave much truth to the story, but it leaves out a critical element. Smart devices. Ever see how many kids have their noses stuck in a smart device? Remember how parents use to limit TV time because it was harmful, either not enough exercise, hard on your eyes, etc etc.? How often does one see kids playing in the yard anymore?
Now we have electronic devices. Over the past 20 years they have been developing more and more where kids spend much more time. Remember Pac Man? Wonder how many hours one spent playing that game. Electronic devices is an addiction, much like drugs.
Every move made by ones hand ends with a response. When changes occur on the screen, a child’s brain produces a neurotransmitter dopamine. Dopamine is a response mechanism of our brain rewards system and dopamine hits in the brain can feel almost addictive. Based on this response to dopamine feedback a child will desire the stimuli of this immediate response, forgoing interaction with other kids. Playground activities, organized sports activities, games etc will not provide the immediate stimuli the brain has become normalized to and real world interaction becomes “abnormal”. As those kids grow older, the brain has not developed the centers that are needed for social interaction, so as older adolescence interact, much of their interaction is still centered around electronic devices. Just walking in the woods where nature is all around, the younger generation forgoes that experience with a smart device in their face as they walk. Go to a college football game and many are watching the game on the device or watching something completely different. Set down at a restaurant and scan the room. How many are really experiencing a social interaction or interacting with a smart device?
I want kids to have more time to get out into the yard and play – unsupervised, in the dirt.
I think Haidt addresses that.
But the issue of smart devices is more complex.
Social media IS a form of socialization – and it does address many of the things that Haidt addresses. It is a world in which kids can interact unsupervised by adults where there is more pressure to figure things out on their own.
There is a great deal of research on the ways that devices are changing our relation to the world and each other. There are bad aspects, but there are also good aspects.
The big issue is not that devices are harmful to our development. But that some of the things we have lost – such as the free play and the absence of unsupervised interactions with our peers and the absence of some responsibility growing up are harmful to us, and devices contribute to minimizing that.
Prof. Peterson echoed some research that our interactions with computers – particularly computer games are driving up specific components of IQ – measurably. The impact is not large, but it is statistically significant, and it is one of few things that have ever been shown to positively impact IQ. But the effect is narrow – confined to only one of 5 aspects of IQ.
We are also learning that many of the claims about such things are not merely false but the opposite of expected.
The use of pornography reduces sexual misconduct (as does prostitution quite significantly),
Violent video games seem to leave us less prone to violence not more.
All kinds of behaviors can be addictive. Different people are different. Some people are more prone to addiction than others. as I keep stressing we are not all equal.
With respect to your other notes – you may be right.
But I am still libertarian. The fact that I would rather walk through the woods and experience it, does not mean I can force others to put down their screen and do so.
Respecting the freedom of others, means respecting their freedom to make choices I think are wrong or bad for them.
The big issue with the Haidt article – is these kids are not choosing to destroy their own futures -their parents are doing it for them. While I trust parents far more with making choices for their children than the states – there are studies that shoe that placing kids who have been abused by their parents back with the abusive parent is BETTER for them than placing them in the care of the state. That is not a claim that abusive parents are good, only that the state is that bad.
Nor BTW is this new knowledge. “Weeping in the playtime of others” is 40 years old.
We need to get government out of the way – getting rif od stupid laws and rules that pretend kids are going to be abducted by strangers and murdered if left alone for a second, and then we need to provide parents with the information necescary to make good choices – and hope they do.
I am happy – because mostly I have not made the mistakes that most of these parents in this article have. At the same time I can see that my kids did not get the same freedoms growing up that I did. As much better as I find my kids than the norms, I still see where they have been harmed by missing out on things that were normal for me.
It is not the things they have done that I regret – it is the things they did not do.
Food safety laws.
You can provide Home Made food as part of a B&B – but you can not sell the leftovers.
Home-made food provides significant supplimental income to poor rural women.
So of course we should make that harder.
The unintended consequences of regulations are nearly always harmful.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/28/new-report-shows-some-home-cooking-rules-do-more-harm-than-good/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tds-tw
Stupid laws are made fore smart people to avoid.
“Buy a cup of coffee for $5.00, have a muffin ”
“Buy a Coke for $4.00, get some pizza ”
“Make a donation to the YYY by bringing a can of XXX and enjoy some of our soup free”
Even buy two napkins, and enjoy one of our donuts.
Like one kid did with a lemonade stand, buy one of my cups (he had decorated it with a magic marker) for a $1.00 and fill it with lemonade if you wish from the container on the table.
Just because we can get creative does not mean we should have stupid laws.
BTW as the left as increasingly demonized “loopholes’ we have moved more and more towards the “crime” is in the intent, not the act or the details.
Prostitutes have tried the you pay for my time, or a massage, or some other service, and the sex is free – and they lose all the time.
While I think creative loopholes are just proof that we are dealing with stupid laws, do not bet on a loophole getting you arround a bad law. Unless you are ready to go to jail.
Worse still when you exploit a loophole you have absolutely ceded intent.
If you sell leomonade without a license – you can claim ignorance – once, and maybe get away with it. If you sell a cup and give away the lemonade – you are openly admitting you know selling lemonade is illegal.
The times has become Brietbart.
https://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/polarization-and-the-counter-factual-crisis#.WkosBIw3dh4.twitter
Dave, I’m responding down here to a comment that you made further up the thread:
“Jay, Roby, the media, the left are quite overtly acting as if destroying Trump as a person will destroy the forces that elected him. That is a very very dangerous strategy, and it is morally wrong.”
I don’t know that Roby has implied this in any of his comments ~ he clearly despises Trump, but I think that he understands that impeachment, without clear evidence of wrong-doing, or attempted suppression of wrong-doing by the upper echelon of the Intelligence Community and the DOJ would be banana republic-level strategy.
Other than that, I totally agree that the animus toward Trump has been and remains intensely personal, while, at the same time, oblivious to the fact that half of the country (yes, I know that Hillary won the popular vote, but that’s just California) felt strongly enough about his platform to elect him, in a stunning upset, which was a rebuke to the expansion of the federal government. And I also agree with you that the obsession with destroying Trump as a person, destroying his family and his businesses, because of a personal hatred toward him, is an evil and immoral goal.
I do think though, that the Democrats may be on a path to destroying themselves in the longer term, even if they succeed in destroying Trump.
They have been demanding impeachment and/or removal of the president by way of the 25th amendment, since well before Trump’s inauguration. Most of my liberal friends are not like Jay…they dislike Trump, and find him to be an embarrassment, but they are almost equally embarrassed by the insane level of fury directed at him. It’s kind of like Rick’s previous column, in which he admitted to a level of sympathy for Trump, the man. Listening to Maxine Waters screech “Impeach 45!!!” everywhere she goes is as embarrassing to them as Trump’s tweets, if not more so.
I think that the central mistake that the Democrats have made, is to demand impeachment, long, long before there existed any shred of evidence of a crime. Even Trump’s remark to Comey about “seeing his way clear to letting Flynn go” is such thin evidence of obstruction, that it fails to cross the line into criminal behavior, especially since Comey “saw his way clear” to letting Hillary go for obvious criminality, and lying on a grand scale.
I think that the process is tainted beyond repair at this point, and almost 100% political. There is no search for justice, there is only an end-justifies-the-means search for a way, any way at all, to destroy a duly elected president, because he is not the president that they wanted, and he does not act “presidential.” And the majority of Americans, I believe, will recoil at that.
There is no way to change the direction of this at this point, no way to get back from “witch hunt” to “search for truth.” Once a Special Counsel was appointed, before there was any evidence of a crime, the completely partisan, political nature of this was set. And, I don’t think it will end the way the Democrats want it to…..
https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/government-corruption/congress-officially-investigating-fbi.htm?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiAiMCJ9&utm_campaign=ci2
“Nunez continues to be frustrated by a stubbornly covert DOJ, and the intelligence committee’s efforts to convince the federal agency to hand over additional documents crucial to their investigation have been denied.”
Ok TNM friends, I need opinions from all sides on this issue. The article concerns the stonewalling Congress is experiencing in their investigation, up to and including not responding correctly to court orders.
The FBI is part of the DOJ. The DOJ is headed by Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions reports to the president. The DOJ and FBI are doing most everything they can to block a GOP investigation into the dossier that is now a key piece of the Trump collusion issue.
Has the DOJ and FBI gone rogue?
Is Jeff Sessions totally incompetent ?
Why would Trump not comment about this resistance?
Or is this situation reported in multiple publications Fake News and something one needs to ignore?
Sessions has recused himself from all things Russia.
This is Rosenstein.
With respect to the Trump is somehow stonewalling thesis which comes up occasionally – even on the right. I would note that ultimately the witheld information leaks or gets to congress or both.
Thus far it has been universally favorable to Trump.
That near certainly means Trump has nothing to do with the stonewalling.
My guess is that Trump has been advised by his lawyers to do NOTHING regarding DOJ/FBI/Russia
Regardless, we are guessing when we try to determine who or why the DOJ/FBI is stonewalling.
Except that if can not be Sessions as he has publically and formally recused himself.
The DOJ/FBI has been “rogue” for a long long time.
First US attorney’s have been prosecuting bad cases and trying to make new law for a long time.
I do not beleive it is the role of a prosecutor to seek a broad view of a criminal law.
Mueller’s use of “moneylaundering” is an example, but there are plenty that are not “political”.
US Attorney seek to make their reputation by sending “bad people” to jail
There is little concern for the actual law, or whether someone is “bad” merely because they are targeted by the DOJ.
Many here constantly spew the absolute garbage that being in business is the same as being a crook.
Jay “KNOWNS” that Trump has broken the law all over and that he is the don of a mafia like crime family. What is the evidence of this ? Trump is a very successful businessmen.
And we all “know” you can not succeed without being crooked.
This is unfortunately the predominant view.
It is wrong.
It is also DANGEROUS.
The view that trade is morally reputable has not been common in history.
It suddenly emerged in Europe in the late middle ages and THAT change triggered the renesaince and the enightenment and the greatest period of growth and prospertity in human history.
I have nothing against charity – I greatly support it.
But historically free markets have done far far far more to improve the human condiction than all the mother theresasa that ever were.
If I had to choose between restraining charity and restraining free markets – I would have to pick charity – as restrinig markets does much more harm to “the most vulnerable.
Anyway the point is we are ALL rogue, because we view ALL free exchange is immoral.
And our governance reflects that.
Separately I have NOT held a high view of FBI/DOJ for a long long time.
I have not forgotten Ruby Ridge or Wacco. I have not forgotten the Antrax scandal(Mueller) or the FBI labs disaster
I do not need to beleive the FBI/DOJ is politically corrupt to beleive they are corrupt.
Finally people forget that the bureacracy is “self serving”.
This does not have to be left/right to be corrupt.
The FBI/DOJ are protecting their own
I think it is more likely for the top of DOJ.FBI to be corrupt left rather than right – because the left favors bigger government.
But the issue is power, not left/right.
RonP: If you trust Mueller, like me, I would urge Congress to be patient and not have competing investigations. This minimizes any leak potential.
dduck, I was in college during the Viet Nam war when they told everyone Communist would take over all of Asia if we did not stop them. So we fought the N Vietnamese. They said they were fighting to win, but we took hills multiple times and lost hundreds doing it because the asses in DC were micromanaging the war. I worked 30+ years in hospital finance and saw hundreds of examples of our government screwing small fries, while the big fish went untouched. We have seen our government send troops to the middle east, pull support out too soon and lost more soldiers because of politics. And how about fast and furious ,the IRS targeting conservative groups or the Comey Clinton email feasco.
So maybe you trust Mueller. I do not. I think he will do the same thing as all the other political hacks in DC. Trusting anyone in government is dumber than trusting someone online with your social security #.
I grew up in a Democrat family. It did not take me long to come to my senses once I realized what the Democrats did to over 100,000 men in VN coming home dead or wounded with no support at home when they returned. Over the years since the GOP is just as bad. Thus my Libertarian leanings and strict adherence to the actual words in the constitution.
I have little hope that Mueller will not manufacture something to justify spending over 8 million already and more before this ends.
Throughout my lifetime – the left has been very hostile to much of government much of the time.
The right has been hostile to other parts of government much of the time.
Yet, when the left is in power – suddenly government is good.
When the right is in power – suddenly government is good.
Paid (and today very well paid) public service does not bestow integrity on people.
While I do not agree with every single criticism of the left or the right of government.
I do not presume that government is inherently good.
I am no more likely to Trust those at DOJ to FBI than those at Goldman-Sachs – with the difference that GS has no actual power over me – DOJ.FBI do.
Snakes often come in suits. Sometimes they work in Wall Street.
Quite often they work in Washington.
The left and right have near universal agreement on that EXCEPT when each is in power.
Mueller is not going to Manufature something.
That is dangerous.
He is going to take what is already known and make a stupidly expansive argument.
As an example you can find some law professors to support the argument that Firing Comey was “obstruction of justice” despite the fact that even if Trump were not president obstruction doesn’t work that way, Obstruction not only requires an actual crime, but it requires more than a mere investigation – it actually requires a court proceding.
Regardless, my point is Mueller can take one of the ludicrously expansive claims that already exist and run with it. That is consistent with his past record.
Actually finding out the truth is NOT.
Why should you trust Mueller ?
I will admit that I was not immediatly suspicious of Mueller – a number of people on both sides – including some who are now shredding him said very positive things about him back in may.
But I do not presume that government service equates to integrity.
In my experience those who rise in government service are MORE corrupt that most of you here view those in business.
BEFORE Mueller became a big target I started to look into him.
Mueller has been a part of nearly every FBI/DOJ scandal in the past 20+ years.
From Wacco to Ruby Ridge to the Anthrax persecution.
He was part of the commonly misrepresented Comey Hospital confrontation.
He botched several high profile investigations.
His record at DOJ/FBI is of failing up.
He is agressive, bullying, dismissive of subordinates, myopic driven, and prone to make serious mistakes.
I do not think he is “partisan” – though I do think he has a heightened sense of self importance and a beleif that he is th good guy when he has in the past quite often been the bad guy.
I think he represents all that is wrong with DOJ/FBI today.
And if this had nothing to do with Trump – I would still think the same.
I would further note that Comey was portrayed as a “boy scout” with great integrity long ago.
Few would say that of him now.
Integrity in government is a very rare commodity.
Ron, I am as befuddled about Jeff Sessions as you are. At the moment he seems like a complete and incompetent fool, who has allowed this whole investigation to grow out of control.
On the other hand, he and Trump have got to know an awful lot more than they’re letting on, and there has to be a reason why they haven’t ordered the FBI and the DOJ to turn over the documents that Congress is requesting. Sessions may have recused himself from the Russian collusion investigation, but he is still the AG, and the unlawful stonewalling that’s going on in his own department is obstruction of justice. And Trump can declassify anything, and release it to the public. But, for some reason, they are both doing nothing. Maybe they are waiting on the Inspector General’s report on the Clinton email investigation, which is supposed to be released on January 15th. Who knows?
The FBI, or at least the top levels of its Washington leadership, does appear to have gone rogue and participated with some senior DOJ officials in an attempt to prevent Trump from becoming president. And they seem to now be attempting to cover that up. If evidence comes out that shows this actually happened, I don’t know how you get around the fact that what they did was treasonous. It would make Watergate look like nothing.
If we think we are dangerously polarized now, this will be nothing compared to what’s going to happen if BOTH sides think that the other side has committed treason.
I think that Sessions was just about the worst possible choice for DOJ.
On issue after issue that has something to do with DOJ Sessions is on the wrong side.
But I do beleive that Sessions is a person with integrity.
He has recused himself from all things russia.
The blame for this all falls on Rosenstein – who has been apart of much of this going way back the the begining of the U1 deal.
Rosenstein has a REAL conflict – he should be a witness and a target.
Priscilla.
I think it is a serious mistake to presume that the Stonewalling at DOJ/FBI mean Trump knows what DOJ/FBI are holding back.
Several Pundits – including NRO’s Goldberg and Andrew McCarthy have briefly been sucked into beleiving that because DOJ/FBI are stonewalling congress and because Trump is president that they must be protecting him and taking orders from him.
I think that is a very bad assumption.
Goldberg is not saying that anymore, and McCarthy has completely backed away from it.
What Trump and Trump’s lawyers know – that none of the rest of us do for certain – is the full extent of the Trump campaigns contact with Russia.
You and I can argue about whether we are seeing the tip of the iceberg, or all that there is.
But Trump knows.
I would suggest that his behavior since the begining is consistent with someone who beleives this is all garbage and just wants it over with.
If Trump were actually hiding something – he should have fired Sessions, Rosenstien and Mueller.
He should take his chances with Impeachment. He should as agressively as possible fight this from the start. Rather that tweeting taunts at the left – he should be acting to block everything.
He should have destroyed evidence – like Clinton did – before anyone subpeona’s it.
Trump is behaving more consistent with someone who expects this will fund nothing, and is frustrated that it is taking so long.
He is behaving consistently with someone who is looking to make those who are attaking him look bad – because he is innocent and he wants people to see this as a witch hunt.
IF he were actually guilty of something – I think his behavior would be much more agressive.
I would note that Trump is actively involved in many other aspects of being the president.
He is pushing budgets, pushing legislation, supporting political candidates, campaigning, working on numerous forwign policiy initiatives.
Yes, he takes every oportunity he can to bitch slap this investigation.
But he is not hunkered down in the bunker in the whitehouse like Nixon getting nothing done.
He is behaving consistent with what I keep warning – that this “trumpocalyspe” nonsense is NOT sustainable.
When it ends many of the people who are angry at Trump are going to be angry at the left and the press.
We have not experienced something quite like this before.
Watergate had a real crime – There was a real breakin at DNC headquarters in Watergate.
Nixon could have avoided getting impeached – but it would have been a scandal no matter what. If it fizzled there would be no blowback.
There was a real Arms-for-hostages deal with Iran Contra. Reagan handled it adroitly and came out fine but there was no backlash.
Bill Clinton lied under oath. He avoided removal, and played things beautifully and there was actually a small backlash against republicans.
There is no substance here. The papdoulis, Page, Flynn, Trump Jr. “russia” contacts are not going to be seen as significant if there is nothing more.
Further we have a candidate who was elected telling us that the press, and washington were not to be trusted, and were out to get him.
As I keep repeating – when you strike the king – you must kill the king.
There has been a significant shift in republicans in the past month.
Why ? Because they are slowly gathering that this is going to fizzle, and that it is going to backfire big time on the left.
No republican wants to be close to Trump – if Trump is going to become the next Nixon.
But everyone wants to be close to Trump – if he is going to win this thing.
We have all this talk about a democratic wave election.
I have to tell you with an improving economy and everyone associated with this investigation discredited – there may be a republican wave.
Maybe not, but regardless since Trumps election democrats have made a very dangerous high stakes bet that had high odds against them.
I have repeatedly said here – when you accuse someone else – you bet your integrity against theirs.
The entire left and the media has bet heavily that there is something there on this Trump Russia story.
Who do you think people believe when there is not ?
People tend to get very angry when they beleive they have been lied to.
Our past conflicts like this did not have one side selling a lie.
Priscilla;
There is already far more evidence than is neciscary for a very large number of people to be fired or force to resign.
There is also alot of evidence damning people who are already gone.
We have Jay ranting that FBI/NSA/CIA have evidence of Trump Russia that the rest of us don’t.
If so – then it damn well better come out now. Because unlike Jay, neither I nor many other people are buying “Trust us” anymore.
NYT just pushed the “Papadoulis is the real start of the investigation” story.
That was destroyed quickly. First because even if true, being catfished by an english college professor is something the FBI should have figured out in a few days – and not a credible basis for a FISA warrant. Regardless, the new Papadoulis meme runs affoul of their prior “it was carter PAge” and “It was the Steele Dossier” stories. and the only one that is consistent with the known facts and time line is the “steele dossier” meme.
No matter what, it is increasingly evident that the FBI/DOJ/CIA/NSA … had no reasonable basis for the whole Trump/Russia nonsense.
We are rapidly devloving to ALOT of incompetent people in DOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA coincidentally making bad choices OR an organized conspiracy.
The first choices is really really bad. And the first choices is very nearly fully established by the current evidence.
But the 2nd choices is the “far worse than watergate” choice.
We have very little DIRECT evidence of an actual conspiracy at this time.
The worst we have is the “meeting with Andy” and “Insurance policy” remarks.
But we actually have an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence of an actual conspiracy.
We have Rice, and Powers, and Clapper, and Bennan, and Comey, and McCabe and Strzok and Uhr, and Baker, and innumerable others who have ALL acted in furtherance of this increasingly obviously false and evidence free Trump/Russia meme.
How exactly is it that you have the same story being pushed by so many people so castly spread through government without a “conspiracy”
Rise and powers did not decide to “unmask” people associated with Trump out of thin air.
Ultimately you have to either beleive that throughout the Obama administration political bias so clouded peoples judgement that they ALL made the same bad biased poor choices to allow politics to cloud their judgement with respect to their jobs.
Or you have a conspiracy.
Either is very bad. The latter is much worse than watergate.
I am not sure whether we are going to get to the bottom of it.
I think there are strong incentives for the Republicans to limit the scope of this investigation to avoid exposing a conspiracy.
One of the problems we have is that Congressmen routinely engage in the politically motivated conduct that we are seeing inside the Obama administration.
That is permissible for a congressmen. It is not within the executive.
But too many people are unable to grasp that acts that are legal for individuals and even congressmen, are HIGHLY illegal for US attorney’s prosecutors, investigators, CIA and NSA directors.
With actual power comes real responsibility and liabilty.
The power of congressmen is to legislate.
The power of the executive is to ENFORCE.
A congressmen can not drag you into court and threaten you with prison.
They have very limited ability to investigate you.
In short they have very very little power over specific individuals.
More nonsense.
Huge straw man.
Is this what passes for logic from the left ?
Has Trump “done whatever he wants regarding FBI/DOJ ?”
Clearly not. Frankly I think he should have fired alot of people a long time ago.
The only person he has fired is Comey – who despite suddenly being the left’s hero, has been everybodies whipping boy right up to being fired – and deservedly so.
Ms. Rubin’s argument seems to be that if you are president and accusations are made that asserting your innocence is grounds for impeacement.
And she is correct – in the sense that impeachment is political and anything can be grounds for impeachment.
But she is wrong in the sense that while alot of people want Trump impeached – they want him impeached for something they beleive he did.
Not for the garbage that Rubin is selling.
Like you Jay – they beleive that there is more there.
That beleif only last as long as there is reasonable hope of finding more.
The more and more evident it becimes – there is no more, and the more evident it becomes that those who started this knew or should have known there was nothing there from the begining.
The more it is the left in trouble – not Trump.
I want to re-iterate what I have been telling you from the begining.
This is going to end eventually, This is being run as a gigantic game of chicken.
It is highly unlikely to end in a whimper.
Either what you continue to hope for will get estabilished – or this will die and there will likely be a very large backlash against the left.
If you never get to Trump/Russia – but as we are seeing you do establish that FBI/DOJ has never had anything more than the Steele Dossier to go on, the anger will be targeted at the left.
Trump will be able to CREDIBLY carp about “fake news” for the rest of his life.
It will be Trump who people will tend to beleive in the future – not the press not the left.
It would be dereliction of any VP or Cheif of Staff since the 25th amendment was enacted to not to address this – quietly. It is part of their job.
While unlikely any president could have a stroke without warning, or an assassination attempt that maimes but does not kill them or trips and falls down the stairs breaking their neck or …..
That said Kristol making this into a story just makes him look bad.
Just as your linking to it makes you look bad.
It makes it look like you are wishing something bad to happen to Trump.
And you are, and everyone knows it.
Who of any consequence of stature during the Obama administration talked longingly about Obama having a stroke ?
Oh for cripes sake, Jay. Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin? Kristol is a neo-con who hates Trump and never met a war he didn’t love. Rubin is the same. The only reason that they’re even considered “conservative” is because they supported the Iraq War.
And the 25th Amendment was never passed in order for the VP and the cabinet to overthrow the will of the people. It was to ensure the orderly transition of power in the case of a catastrophic illness or injury befalling the president.
Seriously, you need to get a grip.
We are still not a democracy.
The only “crisis” is that you have allowed Trump to own so much of your head space.
While I think Comey should be left alone – just as Flynn should have been.
Comey has leaked classifed government documents – that is a crime.
Asking for the prosecution of criminals is not a crisis.
Trump is actually free to DIRECT that Comey be prosecuted.
He has thus far not done so.
There is nothing wrong with criticising the free press.
Only a left wing not would claim that free speech means you can not criticise the free speach of others.
“tweeting at TV shows” is some new crime ? I know that there are some unbeleiveably stupid federal laws, but this is not one I have heard of.
If NK launches a nuke at the US, your response would be ? Send them Flowers ?
Every Single President Since Truman has made clear that the US would use Nuclear weapons in the event of a Threat to our nation.
The US unique among nations in the world is the only nations that has :
not agreed not to use nukes first,
Used Nukes first.
There is no national security crisis.
Still doubt there was treasonous collusion with Russians from those closest to tRUMP?
Guess who disagrees with you:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff
“Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.
Trump-Russia investigation: the key questions answered
Bannon, speaking to author Michael Wolff, warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”
We have had stories like this all the time.
NYT just gave us the “6 former and current government sources tell us that Papadoulis’s drunken remarks were the basis to start the Russia/Trump investigation”
Of course Every NYT story seems to come with current and former government sources purportedly saying something that we never find out whether anyone actually said, but we always find out is false.
Maybe Bannon actually said these things – I doubt it.
But I still do not understand why it is you think that it is more important what someone said someone said someone said – than what was actually done.
Particularly – when you, I and everyone else – have Trump Jr.’s emails.
We know what he said.
We do not need hyperbolic quintupple or Tripple hearsay.
Actually read the Trump Jr. Emails – and explain to me in YOUR words – using the US Criminal Code exactly how Trump Jr. dis something illegal – as opposed to unwise ?
And then explain to me how if Trump Jr.s conduct is illegal – how is everyone associated with the Steele Dossier not in jail already ?
One of the ways that we know Trump Jr.’s actions were stupid – rather than criminal, is because when others that we are more favorably disposed towards did the same or worse – we were not trying to warp criminal law to make their conduct into a crime.
I lost count at tripple hearsay.
The gaurdian says that wolf says that bannon says that what Trump Jr. said ….
and all this in one of your typical post election books intended to be salacious.
We have Trump Jr.’s emails. We know about the meeting.
We do not need the guardian to tell us what others tell us to think about it.
Some of us are capable of making our own judgements.
I doubt Bannon actually said this.
Though Bannon is prone to hyperbollee and might have.
The Trump Jr. Meeting was stupid.
As was everything the Clinton camapid did regarding the Steele Dossier and their DNC emails.
People do and say stupid things sometimes.
That is not Treason.
In the US Treason is the ONLY crime actually defined in the constitution.
Steve Bannon: “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
Bannon is your hero now ?
Let’s say Bannon is right.
Natalia came to Trump Jr. with dirt.
If that requires Trump Jr. to go to the FBI,
Would have have had to go to the FBI – if Trump Jr. contacted Natalia instead and asked for Dirt ?
What about if Trump Jr contacted a British spy and Asked for Dirt on Clinton from the Russians ?
Must he now go to the FBI ?
What about if Trump Jr. hired a US media firm to hire a british spy to get dirt on Clinton from the Russians ?
What about if Trump Jr. hires a Washington law firm to hire a US media company to hire a british spy to hire Russian spies to get dirt on Clinton ?
Sorry Jay, but you can not spin the meeting between Natalia into something that is not much less consequential than what the Clinton campaign ACTUALLY did with the Steele Dossier.
My only issues with the Steele Dossier have to do with its transfer to and use by the government.
Clinton;s campaign was free to seek dirt on Trump from whatever sources they could get it.
Trump Jr. was free to do exactly the same.
Huffing and Puffing by Bannon does not change that.
Even the argument that meeting with Natalia was stupid – which it was.
Still requires accepting a false premise – that Republicans are somehow obligated to a higher standard of conduct than democrats.
In the real world that is true. But it should not be.
Jay’s heroes are anyone who, at the moment, are trashing Trump.
How meeting, for 10 minutes, with a Russian who claims to have dirt on a political opponent is treasonous, but that same political opponent paying millions to a firm using foreign agents, and in particular, RUSSIAN foreign agents, to write a phony dossier that is then given to the FBI,which pretends it’s real and uses it to try and destroy Trump and his presidency, is NOT treasonous, is a defiance of logic and the very definition of treason ( the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government).
What Junior and Jared did was incredibly stupid and reckless, but it was not remotely treasonous. What Bannon is doing is trying to rehabilitate his reputation the way he always does, by taking credit for Trump’s victory, and now trashing the man who fired him for being a dishonest and disloyal advisor.
Trump’s response is perfect:
“Steve had very little to do with our historic victory, which was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country. Yet Steve had everything to do with the loss of a Senate seat in Alabama held for more than thirty years by Republicans.
Steve doesn’t represent my base—he’s only in it for himself.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/trump-says-bannon-lost-his-mind-after-leaving-white-house
I find it incredibly off that Jay would be celebrating anything Bannon says.
In Jay’s world
If Trump is Hitler Bannon is Satan.
I find the arising Spat between Trump and Bannon humorous.
And I am objective enough that I am ALREADY on the record supporting Bannon on Afghanistan – we should get out, and opposing in elsewhere.
I have no idea whether Bannon was a leaker.
While I may not take every single Tweet by Trump literally – in order to find some way of portraying them as a lie, at the same time I do not presume that everything either Bannon or Trump say is true.
I do think that Trump is angry with Bannon over AL.
I think there were efforts to solve the problem prior to Bannon getting into the race behind Moore, and when Moore’s numbers picked Up Trump felt he could not afford not to support Moore, and did so reluctantly.
I’m not celebrating Bannon, ding-dongs, I’m joyfully observing crazed rats attacking each other.
https://twitter.com/bradthor/status/948624152356966400
No you are equating thrice removed hyperbolic oppinion with fact.
Something you do all the time.
You do it whether it is republicans speaking or democrats.
So long as it is anti-trump you revel in it.
True/untrue you do not care.
You shouldn’t be joyful, Jay.
Trump fired Bannon months ago, and any pretense that the two had any remaining relationship is now done. Bannon has spent most of the past year trying to undermine Trump and the Republicans ~ all of his efforts have been to back loonies like Roy Moore, at the expense of honest conservatives like Mo Brooks and/or establishment Republicans like Luther Strange.
And his entire claim to any influence at all was his repeated claim that he represented the Trump agenda, a claim that Trump has now torched.
Bannon was a pretender, who rode Trump’s coattails, while trying to take credit for his political success. Nobody takes him seriously anymore.
“The opposition research firm that prepared the Trump-Russia dossier just broke its silence in a revealing New York Times op-editorial story which debunks the Republican spin machine desperate to prop up Donald Trump’s sinking presidency.
As Fusion GPS principals Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch explain in their story in the Times, their lengthy report on Trump’s wrongdoing was delivered to Congress in written and oral form, only to be ignored by Republicans.”
http://washingtonpress.com/2018/01/02/trump-russia-dossier-firm-just-told-bombshell-ny-times-op-ed/
Rather than again posting what is “hearsay” about an op-ed in the NYT
You could just link to the actual op-ed.
If you read the op-ed – it does not actually provide a single FACT that is different from what we already know.
The editorical is full of inuendo. It is well written prose. But it says nothing.
The key phrase is “we beleive”
Fusion GPS “beleives” that their Dossier was not the basis for the FISA warrants.
They “beleive” that NSA, CIA and FBI had more.
The claim to have provided the congressional committess with more – not more actual evidence, just more stories and rumors, in other words they expanded on the garbage in the Steele dossier for hours.
As to the claims that republicans and congress have somehow been preventing facts that have been presented to them from getting out – REALLY ?
All Congressional investigations leak like a seive.
Regardless, all this will get out.
Sen. Grassley confirmed in SEPTEMBER that he saw no problem releasing the Fussion GPS testimony and that he expected ti to occur, but that it would take sometime. because in all the time he has been in congress he has never seen another instance where Closed door testimony was asked for much less produced, and no one knows what the process is.
Regardless, the Fusion peice is a classic peice of misdirection.
Fusion is a private business. They are free to provide the public EVERYTHING they provided congress. They are trying to pretend that Congress is keeping what congress was told secret – when nothing prohibts Fusion from publicly providing whatever they provided congress.
The reason Grassley is unfamilar with how to release this, the reason it has never happened before, is that closed door testimony is at the request of those testifying. – and closed door testimony is usually because a governnent agency or contractor is providing classified information. That testimony is unlikely to EVER get release.
“Wa, Wa no one else had bank records subpeoned, the committee was piking on us”.
Fusion GPS is big boys. If you are going to produce OPO research using Russian spies, you should expect that you might be subject to scrutiny.
I would further note – we do not know – and neither does Fusion – most of what they claim to know.
We only know about the Fusion GPS subpoena because they fought it.
The Senate could have boxes of bank statements. for all you, they or I know.
Regardless, this is also a red herring. You subpeona the information pertinant to your investigation.
Who paid for OPO research is quite pertinent.
Fusion and the left seems to beleive you are allowed to make false accusations of others that subject them to having their pants pulled down in public – without the risk of the same happening to you.
I also love the claim – “we did not know about the Trump Jr. meeting until months later”.
Sounds wonderful. But we KNOW for a fact that Natalia met with Glenn Simpson immediately before and immediately after the meeting.
I guess it is theoretically possible that Simpson is not lying.
But it is highly unlikely.
So what exactly are we supposed to be moved by a slef serving whiny editorial from Fusion GPS that provides lots and lots of spin, but nothing actually new – except lots of assertions that there is a mountain of other evidence that we have seen but can not provide and no one has ever heard.
I would remind you that the Fusion is Journalists, these are people who know how to write extremely well. They are very good at trying to make nothing sound like something.
But read there article and tell me
Where is the beef ?
Tell me what new FACTS they provide ?
We have been promised repeatedly – that there is more to this.
Why are we supposed to beleive that even though the NSA/DOJ/CIA/FBI have leaked like a seive on this – and congress has been far worse.
That over the course of 18 months – we keep hearing the same nothing over and over.
Fusions editorial is just another whiny “trust us there is more”.
No, I do not trust Fusion GPS, and there is nothing in the entire editorial that does nto require an enormous amount of Trust of Fusion GPS.
Nothing in the world prohibits Glenn and Peter from providing to the rest of us the “evidence” they provided to congress.
The fact they have not produced any new evidence strongly suggests they do not have any.
What they are doing is demonstrating their skill – and what is wrong with journalism today.
Instead of saying “here is the evidence we provided the Senate that proves Trump/Russia collusion” they have said “we provided damning evidence and the republicans are hiding it and that is the story”
This is the substitution of a false process narative for the actual story.
For facts.
It is also a major part of why no one trusts the left and the media anymore.
Jay, the heat in the kitchen is getting pretty unbearable for Fusion GPS, as well as the group of co-conspirators within the FBI and DOJ who plotted to overthrow Trump.
So they are throwing as much crap on the wall as they can, aided and abetted, as always, by the NYT, hoping that enough of it will stick and confuse the issue enough to get them off the hook.
Unfortunately for them, that’s probably not gonna work.
Priscilla, i received a letter from Virginia Foxx, our representative. I had asked her questions concerning the the lack of response to the house oversight and government reform committee . She stated that there is no law that requires the FBI or DOJ to respond to any request to them by congress. I did a quick scan of the internet and also could not find anything specific to this issue.
So if this is true, no wonder the FBI, Muller and the DOJ is off doing their own thing. They are a government of and to themselves. Who the heck is in charge?
You Representative is right – and wrong.
Congressional subpeona’s are binding. The courts will enforce them.
There are myriads of instances of that in the past. Going back well past watergate.
Further congress can find people in contempt – just as judges can, and they can jail you until the contempt is remedied. There is an actual jail in the capital and it has been used for that – but not in a long time. It was seriously discussed with Lois Lehrner.
But the norm is that Congress refers violations back to DOJ for criminal prosecution.
Oversight of the executive branch is a power given congress int he constitution.
Which is why the courts will enforce congressional subpeona’s.
Ultimately the rule of law depends on those who disagree with a result supporting it anyway.
If Trump was impeached and convicted by the Senate and refused to leave – forces within the executive would have to remove him from the whitehouse. Possible forces that otherwise supported him.
The rule of law is when those with guns enforce the law – rather than the person they prefer.
Dave “But the norm is that Congress refers violations back to DOJ for criminal prosecution.”
So let me get this straight. Congress opens an investigation and asked DOJ and FBI for documents. DOJ refuses to provide info and when they eventually do huge portions are redacted. Congress issues subpoena and DOJ continues to resist. Congress refers the DOJ to the DOJ for refusing to answer a subpoena for information.
What the hell could go wrong with that?!!!!!
Congress can:
Declare some person in contemp of congress – that would be Dir. Wray or AG Sessions.
It can refer them to DOJ for prosecution.
It can jail them in the capital jail.
It can go to court
Regardless there is always a problem when those who enforce the law refuse to follow the law.
I read the entire actual NYT Fusion Article.
It was pretty well written persuasive writing. It iw what one would expect from people who write for a living.
But it did not alter the facts, or introduce new ones.
The gist was “there is alot you do not know, and pay no attention to actual facts, what we say is more important than facts”
Maybe there are things I do not know. But I am going to base my views on things I know – not people telling me they know things no one else does – “trust me”.
We are rapidly approaching the point where “trust me” is becoming proof of the malfeasance and the conspiracy. When everyone says there is more, and for a year we wait for more, and there is no more, the reasonable conclusion is – they were lying and there is no more.
Further the collusion story never made sense.
If Trump wanted to hack the DNC – why did he need Russia ?
There is alot of evidence that the DNC emails were leaked not hacked.
Trump could probably survive paying Seth Rich or someone like him to deliver the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Paying for a DNC leak is a dirty trick, but probably not a crime.
Regardless, getting tied to americans doing something wrong in the DNC is less harmful than getting tied to Russia.
Why would Trump work with Russia to do anything on Social Media ?
The amount Russia put into Social Media is pocket change for Trump.
Why have Russians do what you can easily and legally do for yourself cheaper and better with less danger.
So If Trump did not collude with Russia to hack wikileaks or run social media adds,
what did he collude with Russia over ?
Clearly Trump wanted dirt on Clinton – and was willing to take it from Russians.
That just makes him the same as Clinton.
Clearly he did not get anything useful – how do we know ? Because he did not use it.
One of the problems with the Trump Russia story is the normal question is “Que Bene” – who benefits. In this case the question is “what benefit ?”
Trump did not conspire with the Russians to “do nothing”.
The social media gambit makes no sense – it is something Trump could have easily and legally done on his own.
The DNC email thing makes no sense – the timeline does nto work and again there is no reason to involve Russia.
Ron, I assume that, because Congress has no prosecutorial power, the FBI has decided that it can blow off any demands for information. Similarly, since 1999 there has been no law empowering Congress to appoint a special prosecutor. The President can do it, as can the AG, but the Congress can’t do it.
So basically, you’re correct that the FBI and DOJ can behave any way they damn well please, so long as they can exert political power over the President and or the AG. Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress for outright lying about Fast and Furious, and, since Obama just shrugged his shoulders, nothing happened to Holder at all, and he remained AG. And, of course, James Comey exonerated Hillary, and all of her associates from various felonies in the handling of classified material, without ever even referring her for indictment.
It’s a hell of a bad situation.
President BrainDamaged Donald needs a psychological examination!
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/trump-cog-decline/548759/
More of this garbage Jay ?
Obama needed a telepromter and faltered using it repeatedly particularly during his first year.
Does that mean he was having mini strokes ? Memory Loss ?
Putting everything under a microscope and seeing what you want to see is not evidence of anything.
Trump’s conduct is no different than it has ever been throughout his life.
One of the criticism’s many of us have of him is that he promised that as president he would be diginified and presidential. Yet, he remains the same DT he has always been.
That is not the sign of deterioration.
It is the opposite.
This amateur psychology garbage merely makes you and the media look bad.
I do not beleive that Shrinks shoudl have to be licensed – so it is hypocritical for me to suggest that shrinks diagnosing Trump without meeting him should lose their license.
Regardless, you are trying to make unethical conduct towards another – a justification for investigating that other.
It works the opposite. If you are engaged in unethical conduct – it is YOU that is suspect.
This is the same as your Fusion GPS garbage.
Fusion is trying to deflect from their own conduct.
BTW Fusions conduct is legal, it is just disreputable.
Dave, I bet you could describe in detail the Naked Emporer’s new clothes..
Should music teachers lose their license to teach if they say #PresidentPooPoo is tine deaf?
Your the one who seems to think that very naked arguments are fully clothed.
Given that I do not think anyone should have to have a license to teach – why would I be trying to take away their license ?
21 USC §§1035(a) 1037(b)(3), 1041 & 9 CFR §590.522(f) make it a federal crime for an egg plant to have an egg breaking room where the egg breakers don’t sniff the eggs for wholesomeness.
HA HA HA HA HA!
So Bannon and Trump are needling each other.
You seem to have taken Bannon’s side.
Not because Bannon has great credibility.
Not because you share Bannon’s perspective.
But because you view averything as war with Trump and
“the enemy of my enemy is my freind”.
Welcome to Breitbart Jay.
Your officially a white supremecist now.
HO HO HO HO HO!
Here is the actual statement.
I have never been able to understand why you prefer what others say someone said to what they actually said when what they actualy said (or did) is readily available.
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/trump-statement-steve-bannon/index.html
2018 – I’m Loving it!
Some observations and remarks from Conservative commentator Jennifer Rubin:
“Trump’s foreign corruption problem gets worse –
“The bottom line is simple: Mr. Trump stands to benefit personally, in innumerable and largely hidden ways, from decisions made every day by foreign governments and their agents. Especially given Mr. Trump’s strong personal attachment to his business, it is easy to imagine situations in which he is affected—whether subtly or overtly—by perceptions of whether foreign nations have dealt fairly with the company that he built and still owns. In those circumstances, feelings of gratitude, affection, frustration, and anger inevitably bleed out in complex and hard-to-discern ways, muddling motives in respects that elude conscious awareness or public accountability. Foreign states, attuned to that basic truth of human psychology, will no doubt tread carefully around Mr. Trump’s private interests—seeking to avoid his wrath and induce his favor. The Emoluments Clause was put in place to avoid precisely that blending of public and private interest.”
“Trump’s failure to divest fully at the onset of his presidency and the fundamental failure of the GOP to enforce this basic constitutional protection against foreign corruption now hangs over the presidency and Congress — precisely as the Brookings authors predicted. Each day Trump benefits directly or indirectly by virtue of foreign largess he reduces the administration to the status of banana republic and makes a mockery of our efforts to expose corruption in foreign autocracies and international institutions.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/02/trumps-foreign-corruption-problem-gets-worse-and-the-gops-indifference-is-disturbing/
I like Wapo. But I do not always agree with them.
I do not know Rubin, but based on her CV she is about as conservative as say David Brooks – maybe less.
She is certainly not Erik Erickson, or Newt Gingrich (who I would not really call conservative).
With respect to the her remarks.
Trump seems to be doing pretty well regarding Foreign policy.
I have no idea specifically what Rubin is refering to.
But while I can criticise Trump on some foreign policy issues he is overall doing better than Obama.
A blogger at Volokh thought that Trump should restrain himself regarding Iran.
That instead of speaking out, he should do for protestors in Iran what Iran did for insurgents in Iraq – and provide them with EFP’s – Explosive Formed projectiles. These are advanced forms of EID’s which can be used to take out tanks and armoured persenell carriers.
He thought protestors in Iran might be able to use those more than words.
Besides given the Iraninan government’s efforts to kill our soldiers turn about would be fair play.
With respect to your “personal benefits” argument – there is no decisions that govenrment can make that does not have winners and losers.
This entire line of crap essentially says that anyone with significant economic investment can not ever serve in government.
I would actually argue that Trump’s investments are so broad, and so diverse and so large that he likely has no idea whether those he is dealing with have favored him or not.
Regardless, do you really want to be making this argument considering how much money the Clinton’s have taken from Russian’s and vatious other foreign depots ?
I have no idea what Brookings predicted.
I do know that unlike Sec. State Clinton there does nto appear to be a whitehouse back channel where people who buy steaks at a Trump hotel get bumped to the head of the line to get into the oval office.
As President the Clinton’s made it clear the Lincoln Bedroom was for rent.
As Sec. State they rented access to the State Department.
Thus far there is no evidence Trump is doing the same.
I would further note that Trump is sufficiently wealthy that if he spent $1M on himself personally every day – he could not spend it all before he died.
I doubt he is influenced very much by money today.
But you should idolize Rubin – she’s a Federalist like you…
I am libertarian not federalist.
TODAY’s Federalist society is heavily libertarianish – they are more libertarian than federalist.
Or better put – they are federalist in the pattern of Jay, Hamilton and Madison.
Not the states rights federalists.
As a rule of thumb I beleive all political decisions should be made at the most local practical level.
But that is a practical view not an ideological one. I do not beleive local government is good government. My local government is abysmal.
Finally everyone who occasionally uses the word federalist is not a federalist.
When you have an unprincipled, unqualified, unmitigated narcissistic liar as president ‘shit happens!’
And a lot of shit was happening before he became president. How many times have I mentioned before that tRUMP was likely money laundering for the Russians, and proof of that was hidden in his taxes? NUMEROUS times ! Now here’s a HIGH LEVEL former INSIDER making that charge as well.
“You realize where this is going,” Bannon said in the book. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner. … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”
But he’s your cuddly president, so keep hugging him because he was, you know, elected.
Money laundering: the process of transforming the profits of crime and corruption into ostensibly “legitimate” assets.
You can not “launder” legally obtained money.
Nor can you “launder” the political profits of a corrupt regime – because like it or not they are “legal” they do not need laundered.
We get this kind of garbage when people like Mueller try to bend the law to their own purposes.
You do not just get to make up what money laundering is.
You do nto get to say lots of money was involved and I think these people are bad people – therefore it was money laundering.
I am not even sure how to deal with such crap as “there will be proof in his taxes”.
Given that you have defined “money laundering” as
“free exchange that I do not like” I have no doubt you will find it in Trump’s tax return.
Real money laundering is not going to show up in a tax return.
You appear to have no idea what a tax return beyond a simple 1040 looks like.
Regardless, Trump’s tax return is not going to detail who he did business with or even what specific exchanges where made. You need his books to do that.
Anyway, your whole money landering argument is ludicrously stupid.
This investigation is puportedly about Trump campaign collusion with Russia in fixing the election.
If Trump paid russia – then any money laundering would occur in Russia and would be the problem of whoever he paid – do you think Putin is going to share financial info ?
Regardless – are you really so stupid as to beleive Trump paid Russia for political help ?
The converse would be Russia paid Trump.
Then any “money laundering” would be in the US – while you won’t find that on taxes, you might get clues where to look.
Of course you still need to make this make the smallest amount of sense.
Russia paid Trump, and in return helped Trump win the election ?
Please get me that kind of deal. I desparately want people to pay me to help me.
Bannon is not a “high level insider”.
Again you are clueless about how the world works.
Bannon was an important political advisor and consultant.
He was an idea man, not a money man.
There is about as much reason to beleive he knows about anything Trump campaign finance related as he would know about the wait staff at Trump towers Dubai.
That brings up something else. All your financial nonsense is campaign related.
None of that would be on Trump’s personal tax return.
That would be in his FEC filings – and you can get them yourself.
Regardless, if Bannon said what is purportedly quoted from the book – he is much stupider than I thought.
The quote makes absolutely zero sense.
You can only say this is about money laundering – if you are totally clueless as to what money laundering is.
The only place this investigation has touched money – has been Manafort.
And Mueller botched that – confusing what MIGHT be tax evasion with what is NOT money laundering.
Regardless, the Manafort money is long before the election.
Do you really beleive there is money flowing between Trump and Russia related tot he election ?
That would just be proof of how desparate you are.
Trump is THE president – mine and yours.
He is not cuddly. No one is “hugging” him.
The fact that some of us are unwilling to beleive anything you throw out just because he is an imperfect human reflects badly on you – not us.
Obama was elected too.
And would someone PLEASE EXPLAIN to me why theRepublicans are refusing to release the full transcript of the 21 hour FusionGPS testimony?
Jay “And would someone PLEASE EXPLAIN to me why theRepublicans are refusing to release the full transcript of the 21 hour FusionGPS testimony?”
Come on Jay, that should be as clear as the end of your nose on your face int he mirror. They all do it, Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, they all pick and choose something to leak to confuse the issue. Someone chosen by the party will say, “go leak this and tell them not to identify yourself because your not authorized to release this info.”
Then they get from a few days to a few weeks of “news” concerning whatever viewpoint they want to have supported. They can let out a little Fusion GPS info that fits their narrative today and get a week or so coverage on some right wing news programs and talking heads program.
Please tell me you really don’t believe this does not happen by both parties?
Ron;
I think this testimony claim is a deliberate Fusion red herring.
Congress does not ask for closed door testimony.
Those testifying do. Iit most commony occurs when the executive provides classifed information.
That is never going to be published.
I am pretty sure that I read that Fusion insisted on close door testimony.
Regardless, congress can not prevent Fusion – a private entity from releasing anything they want on their own. Unless you beleive they gave grassley the only copy of their records, or said something they can not remember – this whole claim is a ruse. and a bad one.
This is just a bad effort to sustain the nonsense that there is something real being very successfully burried – when there is not.
Congress leaks like a seive and always has, and no administration is going to prosecute a congressmen for leaking.
If Congress had something daming to Trump – we would know it.
Further Fusion has a repution for managing even their own bad news.
My guess is this editorial means that something even more damaging to Fusion is about to appear. This is a pre-emptive effort to spin down whatever is coming.
Maybe because Fusion is selling you a fake manufactured Crisis.
I am trying to confirm all the details but it is work and I am not sure why it is my job to correct your errors.
Closed door testimony usually occurs for one of two reasons:
The material being discussed is classifed – that absolutely can not be the case as Fusion is a private firm and not a government contractor. Anything they obtained in any way – except through a government contract to a Fusion employee with a security clearance would not be classifed.
Your understanding of classified is upside down and backwards.
Independent non government revelation of classified information – but not from classified documents is legal and make revealing that information for classified documents also subsequently legal.
i.e. one a “secret” becomes public it is no longer classifed.
The other way you have a closed door testimony is that the party testifying it requests it.
It is likely that Fusion only agreed to testify behind closed doors.
And that is the reason for closed door sessions.
Congressment do not like closed door sessions – they like to be seen on TV.
This is also why the publication of Fusions testimony is unusual.
People who demand closed door testimony do not tend to demand publication of their testimony.
Grassley has already agreed to publish – he did that months ago.
Regardless, Fusion is not a government agency or employee – they have no duty to keep secret whatever they said to congress. They can reveal their own testimony anytime they want.
This is a red herring .
And another example that you are clueless about the real world.
You do not understand tax returns
You have no idea what money laundering is.
You do not understanda classified documents.
and you do not understand that the government can not stop a private party from making public anything they know – UNLESS they have a security clearance, and obtained the information from classified government sources.
https://twitter.com/jazzypeacechick/status/948590626643283968
Government has no business involving itself in free and voluntary exchange between private individuals.
Not drugs, not sex, not lemonade.
We agree on that.
But we should tax sex. Or license it.
That would wipe out the deficit immediately.
Jay, why not? Its happening today without a tax.
Never happen. Washington still wants the swamp controlling lives. Up to 40 states have approvec marijuana in some form. Trump said this should be a state issue during the election.
Now this ass who has not done one thing as AG comes out with this.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-department-to-crack-down-on-legal-marijuana-with-roll-back-of-obama-policy/ar-BBHRJKI?OCID=ansmsnnews11
Jeff Sessions is a big problem in DC. He is the swamp! He will not do anything to direct his department to cooperate with congresx, but he will take on the kids with epilepsy who are now leading near normal lives due to medical cannabis.
Conservatives and liberals have more in common than most people believe. They both think people need government to protect them from themselves.
I flat tax on individual income or a uniform sales tax on all sales to individuals.
You can have one or the other but not both.
All taxes should be paid by individuals. The entire purpose of government, economies, corporations is individuals.
Further taxing anywhere but at the individual hides the fact that all costs of government are paid for by individuals and makes raising taxes stupidly easier.
You should never tax twice.
All taxes should be on everything.
Taxes should never advantage or disadvantage anything.
Taxes should not disadvantage cigarettes or advantage ethanol.
This is important because it distorts the economy and causes us to make choices different from our actual values.
Yes Ron, I agree with you, Sessions is a Twerp.
Wonderful! Even more Conservatives think tRUMP is a *&*#&$& #*$@#
Jay , Damn, he stole my story. Over a year ago I posted a comment here on Trump and how his campaign was all based on the “Producers” play and how he was going to make a HUUUGE TV program out of his campaign. It just happened to many votes in three states screwed that idea.
Bannon is a big mouth and loves to hear himself speak.
Though I do not trust third party hearsay, it is plausible that Bannon said what Wolf says he said.
I am extremely dubious that Wolf got Murdock to talk.
How ironic that Bannon has become the darling kg the progressive new outlets after he was rated as nuclear waste before. “The enemy of my enemy id my friend”
Just like Comey. They could go on the road ~ The Steve and Jimmy Show”
Actually, I’ll bet Bannon shows up on all the shows, now that he’s Trump’s enemy…
I suggest checking Wolff out. He is constantly criticized for altered or just plain fabricated quotes.
https://www.voanews.com/a/fema-trailer-disaster-cost/4181188.html
I comment many times about government waste. This is another example of America not giving a damn, conservatives having a cow over spending, but not doing anything, liberals bitching and moaning about conservatives and they care less to start with low lying fruit. I say everyone needs to shut the f up until issues like this are fixed. Liberals would have something to piss and moan about if they worried about true waste in government as they do about people not paying enough in taxes. Conservatives would have something to support anal hemmoragess they have over spending if they worried about true waste to begin with.
$150,000 f’in dollars for something camping world sells for 30-40K. The picture shows a large trailer on wheels like ones pulled behind dullie pickups. You can buy a nice motorized RV starting around 90k. A nice 1200 sq ft modular home averages $78.00 per sq ft or around 90k.
So why are we paying $150k for this crap???????
How much wasted time, effort and money did this cost us, Ron?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/367346-connolly-fraudulent-voter-fraud-commission-got-ugly-death-it
Jay, probably about the same as Muellers investigation, 7M to 8M. But you tell me since you found this article. I’ll see if I can find anything and include it with my list of issues I send to my rep, like she will give a damn. Just another tea party quack that runs her mouth about spending and does nothing.
What I read is democrats interfering with critical work.
The left has been claiming – in the face of good circumstantial evidence that there is no voter fraud. Fine – cooperate with the presidential commission and we will get the data to find out one way or the other.
Instead we are going to duke this out for another couple of decades – or until something really bad and obvious happens.
You are fixated on Russia and the election.
I do not think Russia hacked the voting machines, but I fully understand that is a possibility and we should look to deal with it. But you just killed the commission that would have done that.
I can think of very little more central to government than the integrity of the vote.
Certainly that is more important than FEMA RV’s.
And yes, we all know that despite the fact that something like 80% of blacks support Voter ID laws that democrats think voter ID is voter supression.
If you can not bother to bring a photo-ID to the polls, or you won’t sign an affidavit swearing that you are who you say you are – then I think “supressing” your vote is a good thing.
Priscilla… this book has got to be required bedtime reading..
Get a copy ASAP,
http://www.newsweek.com/top-20-revelations-trump-fire-and-fury-book-about-golden-showers-ivanka-bannon-769899
It’s not out yet, but by the time it is, all the good parts will have been excerpted. And, you’ll keep me posted ! 😎
Here’s a good pre release excerpt for you:
(BTW, I think half the stories in the book probably are phony – but if any of the other half are valid, Prez Crazy In the Head has to be removed)
Jay
You think Trump has to be removed because he breathes or because it is tuesday.
Or a weekday or a day of the year.
You should definitely buy the book
I am sure you will have fun reading it – unless you blow a gasket.
And it should give you material for thousands of posts.
Wolff has a reputation for misquoting and completely fabricating conversations.
Al the figures in this book are public figures, he is suit proof. He have make things up with impunity.
Ron, don’t remember if I asked you this: if it turns out tRUMP businesses were money laundering, for Russia or the Mafia, before he ran for president, would you want him to be impeached?
You can impeach trump for no reason or any reason at all.
But yes, if you find unicorns you can impeach trump.
But unicorns are not real. And you remain clueless as to what money laundering is.
Short answer yes, and if that was found, the sooner the better so Pence could take over and calm the waters for a few months before more crap hit the fan with another election.
Long answer. Once there was sufficient evidence, then the house would need to determine if that met the “high crimes and misdemeanors” criteria. For over 240 years, I dont think that has ever really been defined. Nothing defines if the crime had to be after the inauguration or at anytime as long as the statue of limitations have not run out. Gerald Ford stated during the Nixon crisis it was whatever the house defined it to be that day they decided. Meaning, another day, it could be different. If the house decides to investigate and they vote a simple majority that there is sufficient evidence to support a trial, the articles of impeachment are prepared (ie Clinton). Those are then sent to the senate and they decide for a trial at which time the chief justice sets as the presiding judge. The trial is held and then 66 senators have to decide if guilty or not and if guilty, then for removal from office occurs. As with Nixon Trump would know well in advance if the votes were there and would probably resign.
But my question concerning money laundering…..you can know in a small organization who is doing that. In an organization as large as the Trump organization, can you criminally charge a CEO of that company if there is not direct evidence the CEO was involved?
With Trump, many people would like to see this happen. But that is opening up a huge precedent setting case where non political CEO’S would be charged with crimes committed by lower management personnel. With our political climate now, that makes me very nervous.
It is not necescary to find a crime to impeach Trump. Certainly if any crime was found – he will be impeached.
That said Mueller was not and can not be given the impramatur to investigate the eniterty of everyone’s lives.
I do not understand why no one seems to realize that whatever is done with Trump will come back in spades.
Are we going to investigate the entire lives of the next set of presidentical candidates ?
Or is the new rule that no one who has ever been in business should consider politics.
I know that you would like to see President Pence – I would not.
While technically we elected him – he was about zero factor in voting.
For all Trump’s warts, and for All Pence’s better character – Pence is not the president that was elected.
You want things to “calm down”. I don’t – and that is not what was elected.
Trump was elected to do mostly what he is doing – drain the swamp.
The extent to which he is shrinking the federal government though no even close to my wishes is completely unprecidented. I beleive it is substantially greater than Reagan.
One of the reasons that Trump has weak support among establishment republicans is he is not replacing Obama defectors with Republicans. He is not replacing them.
He has only filled about 1/3 of the normal presidential appointment spots – and does nto seem inclined too.
Many many parts of the federal government are operating under acting supervisors who were carreer underlings, and these people are not ambitious, They are doing almost nothing. They do not wish to attract attention. Further droves of carreer federal employees are dispirited and leaving for retirement or for the private sector.
four or even better eight years of this and the federal government will be very seriously eviscerated. Further these people will be very difficult to replace in the future.
We are talking about a much weaker and less ambitious federal government for decades.
And that is fantastic. It will make it much easier to cut spending, to eliminate redundant departments.
This is Trump working. This is not Pence. I do not believe Pence has the knowledge or skills or balls to do this.
Trump managed billion dollar businesses. He understands that lighter is better, He understands that the ways the federal government will fail if he allows staffing to collapse will all be good.
So after you have sent Trump off to Elba, and we get President Sanders or Warren or Biden – are you going to unleash a Special council on them – because “they must have done something wrong” and tear through their entire life ?
Warren has represented herself as a Cherokee – that certainly resulted in additional federal funding for the places she taught – that would be fraud – are we going to investigate and impeach her ?
Biden is an order of magnitude more groppy than Trump – do we send a special counsel after that ?
Sanders has some very dirty deals up in Vermont – do we sick a special council on those ?
Or do we just appoint a permanent special council to dig through the life of whoever is elected ?
I know that Mueller has used this idiotically stupid definiton of money laundering that will near certainly get tanked by the court ultimately – but do we have to keep using it here ?
I have a huge problem with the entire concept of “money laundering” .
The whole purpose of the crime was to allow government to spy on our use of OUR money.
That said thus far “money laundering” is so far still the deliberate effort to transform the profits of crime into legitimate assets.
I would love to hear from Jay (or Mueller) how that matches at all what Manafort did or what he is alleging Trump has done.
Do you think Trump is selling drugs ?
I get that Jay and the left and all too many moderates think that making money particularly large amounts of money can not be done without committing a crime. But in fact the opposite is true.
Trust is absolutely critical in business.
Anyway what business activity that Trump is in do you think constitutes money laundering ?
I would suggest that your CEO analogy is false – you can easily charge CEO’s for crimes they did not know about – or even criminally for non-crimes they did not know about.
Go watch the Howard Roof video again.
The precident you are worried about was set long ago.
That said Mueller is unlikely to get anywhere with Trump business activities.
Trump has an army of lawyers and accounts. They make sure that everything he does is legal BEFORE he does it.
More and more mental health professionals are coming to the same conclusion: Schlump is fershuggerner.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367362-lawmakers-briefed-by-yale-psychiatrist-on-trumps-mental-health-report
More left wing nut psycho porn.
More right slanted dumb denial
More and more of our allies are coming to the same conclusion: Schlump is verboten:
no just more talking heads talking trash .
Wow, Richard Blumenthal – you mean that guy who lied about being a VietNam War veteran, when, in truth, he obtained 5 deferments, and finally used his family connections to get a spot in the Marine reserves, where helped to organize a Toys for Tots drive?
Lol, you have some strange heroes, Jay……
Priscilla/Jay, someone fill me in on this one. Other than being a prosecutor from 90-94 and working for Giuliani who supported Trump, whats the underlying story?
Don’t just say its someone he has ties to in the past because every damn president has brought people into the government after their inauguration.
Or Jay, because of your hate, are you saying Trump should appoint Paul Fishman to this posts?
He obtained 5 deferments, and used his family connections?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
You get the ironic humor of that, right?
I do, but the difference is that one lied about it.
Anyway, I agree with Ron that it’s really, really stretching things to say that because the president appoints one US Attorney to replace another US Attorney, and the new guy is a partner in a the same firm as one of the president’s high profile supporters, that’s “abhorrent to the rule of law.”
Then again, a guy who would pretend that he risked his life fighting in a war might also pretend that he knows something about the rule of law.
What he should have done an impersonal interview ?
What would Trump be prosecuted for ? There is absolutely no crime even been alleged yet.?
Yes we all know you beleive trump has committed every crime you can imagine
But that is not the standard.
I am pretty sure Guiliani has had this specific position before.
Only the left would think this is an issue.
This is far less of a problem than Mueller appointing Clinton’s lawyers to “investigate” Trump.
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/948766624743477248
You presume that Bannon has something to testify about.
So far when has Mueller gotten anything useful from anyone ?
“You presume that Bannon has something to testify about.”
You presume he hasn’t …
Yes, I do presume that Bannon has nothing to testify to.
That is ALWAYS the default.
Most of us have no evidence to give regarding unicorns.
Ron/Dave,
The first 2.5 minutes of this video of a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing held shortly after the Special Counsel was appointed is worth listening too. Senator Lankford is questioning Admiral Rogers of the NSA as to “violations” of ” 702 qbout queries” that Rogers discovered in October of 2016.
702 about queries are, in my understanding, what have been called “unmaskings” in the media. They violate a private American citizen’s privacy rights, under the Constitution, and are only supposed to be used if a legitimate national security concern exists, and only with a FISA warrant.
I think that Rogers is saying that he discovered that it was possible to unmask private citizens without a warrant through these queries, and that he put a stop to this, until the legalities of this could be worked out. In other words, anyone wanting to surveil a private US citizen, and then unmask him/her using an about query, would have to obtain a warrant through a FISA court judge, as per the NSA regulations.
Ten days after the election, Rogers traveled to Trump Tower to brief Trump about his concern. The next day, the presidential transition was moved to Trump’s home in NJ. Around this time, the Washington Post reported that James Clapper was demanding that Admiral Rogers be removed from his position as head of NSA.
It’s an interesting timeline.
I have not watched this yet – but I will.
I do not think 702 about queries and unmasking are the same.
I think that is a separate abuse that was going on at the same time.
There is not and never has been a warrant requirement with regard to unmasking.
Queries – which ARE a search and DO require a FISA warrant if the target is a US citizen.
are not the same as unmasking.
One is a priori the other is a posteriori.
BOTH are problems that were occuring in the Obama administration.
About query violations peaked during Obama – but they have always been an issue.
Basically NSA captures enormous amounts of data constantly.
The partriot act and the courts have made the stupid distinction that capturing data is NOT a “search” But querying it is.
So the NSA/CIA/IC can capture pretty much anything they want.
They can search it to their hearts content also SO LONG AS the target is not a US Person.
Put simply we can not spy on US persons, we can spy on everyone else in the world.
When we want to query the same captured data for information on a US person we must get a FISA warrant.
All of the above is relative to PRODUCERS of intelligence.
There is a very strong division in the IC between producers and consumers.
Producers get access to raw data – consumers do not.
Producers se the real names etc. But BEFORE they forward any intelligence to Consumers.
They sanitize it – removing anything that will identify a US person.
That is what Susan Powers, Susan Rice, the president most analysts get.
When a consumer wants a US persons identity they must request it – that is what is meant by unmasking.
It is important to remember that everything we are talking about here is the product of US SPYING. This is the product of the CIA, the NSA.
This is not (normally) the product of the FBI. Normally the FBI is a consumer of intelligence.
Further the FBI is bifurcated – its counter intelligence – which do NOT follow the rules that bind criminal investigations, and its criminal investigations divisions are entirely separate.
This is also par tof what is wrong with the Mueller investigation.
It is a synthesis of a counter-intelligence and criminal investigation that is unconstitutional on its face.
Interesting, Dave. Would a query that turned up a US citizen whose identity was not sufficiently masked by the producers be a violation?
So, for example, if DJT Jr. is speaking to a foreign diplomat under routine surveillance, and his name is removed, but in the course of conversation he says “After my father is inaugurated, blah, blah,blah” it would be obvious to the consumer of the intelligence that the US citizen was Trump’s son.
So, passing around that kind of report throughout the intelligence community, which is what I gather was happening, seems an unlawful violation of Junior’s privacy, assuming that he is not a target.
“Would a query that turned up a US citizen whose identity was not sufficiently masked by the producers be a violation?”
The process works differently.
Intelligence producers make queries, often at the direction of consumers.
They get raw unmasked results. THEY are supposed to “make” the results such that the identity of any US person’s is concealed before turning the information over to intelligence consumers.
Consumers are never to have direct access to raw unmasked data.
But Consumers may request that US person in the intelligence they have received be “unmasked”.
Adm Rogers was I beleive refering to the query side of the process.
I beleive he was discussing the fact that warrantless queries for information on US persons was occurring constantly. That is a completely separate problem.
Regardless, the entire process is carefully constructed with detailed rules throughout to allow the US government the broadest power to spy on foreigners while protecting the right of US persons.
This complexity is necescitated by the mass data collection that we now do.
Congress and the courts have elided the 4th amendment – which protects US persons from warrantless searches, with this elaborate process.
The courts have decided that the mass collection of data does NOT constitute either a search or seizure – in this specific context. The law otherwise would definitely consider the mass collection of data about someone a seizure.
The process essentially is:
Mass collection is considered legally meaningless.
The Query of the information is considered a search.
If you are not a US person, you have no rights and therefore the US government can search for information that does not target US persons to its hearts content.
But any search that targets a US person or is otherwise constructed to get information on a US person or persons is a search and therefore requires a warrant.
That is where FISA warrants come in.
Anyway after a search has been performed, the resulting information on US persons where there is no FISA warrant must be masked before turning it over to intelligence consumers.
Consumers are then permitted to request unmasking – but there are rules and a process for that.
Some of this structure dates back to the Clinton administration – or even earlier.
Mass data collection has a long history.
Clinton wa the earliest big advocate for it.
But mass data gathering and this process really took off post 9/11 with the Partriot act.
That is what defines much of this process.
There have always been abuses.
Many NSA analysts have been disciplined or fired for querying for information about spouses, or girlfriends – one of the most common abuses.
Remember consumers have direct access to the raw collected data. There is nothing between them and whatever they wish to know except rules and procedures and records.
Rogers was refering to the fact that there was a huge spike in queries for information on US persons during the late Obama administration. There is a very damning FISA court report on that.
That said the spike was a problem, but I am not aware of evidence that that spike reflected an administration wide effort to circumvent the rules and engage in political spying on US persons.
Near the same time frame there was a spike in unmaking. That corresponded to a whitehouse order relaxing the unmasking standards. There is a great deal of evidence that constituted an effort by a number of people in the administration to engage in political spying. And that is a serious problem.
With respect to your example.
I have to be a bit careful because there is alot we do not know – and NSA has lied repeated – sometimes for actually good reasons. There are somethings we do know – as a result of Snowden.
PURPORTEDLY mass data collection is ONLY of communications meta-data.
You will not get DJT Jr said X to Y. You will get Kislyak called US person A at xx:yy pm 12/23/2015 for 32m. possibly more – but all metadata not actual communications.
We do know separately that actual emails are collected – including content and that other internet traffic is collected.
Further I am pretty sure that the masking process applies to all information exchanged between producers and consumers. So if the Saudi Prince traveled to the US and met with Trump and Gulliani at the Helmsley Pallace Hotel, and that information was obtained through normal “spying”. The meeting would still be reported to say Susan Powers or Samantha Rise as
Saudi Prince met at Helmsley Palace with US person A and US person B.
This brings up a broad issue.
There are acts that are ALWAYS wrong – murder.
But many many things are usually wrong, but sometimes not.
Many here continually make the mistake of presuming that some of what I argue is absolute
The US government may use force to kill someone.
But the overwhelming norm is that it may not.
The exceptions to the rules/principles/…. are supposed to themselves be well defined – following bright line rules.
Querying for US persons is not inherently wrong or illegal.
Unmasking is not inherently wrong or illegal.
But it USUALLY is.
All government power is subject to conformance with rules that are supposed to protect our rights.
The complaint regarding the Obama administraiton is that the rules that protect our rights were not followed.
That is very important.
Watergate occured because Nixon could not get the CIA/FBI to do what he wanted – to spy on US persons. Had the patriot act and mass surveilance existed he would not have needed to send burglars into the DNC headquarters.
That is why this is WORSE that watergate. Nixon had to involve people outside of government to spy on the DNC. The Obama administration used the machinery of government itself, it stretched or broke the rules to do so.
If you do not think this is bad – worse than watergate.
Then tell me what it is that the Trump administration can not do with NSA/CIA in terms of spying on its enemies ?
If the Obama administration can use the process to spy on Trump and his campaign.
Can Trump spy on Biden’s or Warren’s or Sander’s people ?
One of the things that most disturbs me about Jay, but everyone – though the left more so than the right. Is there sanse of what is right and wrong varies depending on whose ox is being gored.
We litterally have the media and the left arguing that something that Trump and Obama have both done is obstruction of justice when Trump did it, and not when Obama did it.
When what is acceptable and what is not varies based on WHO does it rather than what is done we have lost even the pretense of the rule of law.
I have tried to describe the process as I understand it.
My discription is almost certainly wrong – as the entire process is cloaked in secrecy.
But what I have said is true – to the extent that it conforms to what has gotten out about the process one way or the other. AND that the process exists to provide National Security related intelligence AND protect the rights of US Persons.
With respect to privacy – the war on Drugs has nearly destroyed much of our right to privacy.
There are few aspects of the 4th amendment that still are meaningful.
Though the pendulum APPEARS to be shifting the other way.
One of the big deals is that Supreme court justices rarely see anything as a violation of privacy rights UNLESS they can see it applying to them.
Today Supreme Court Justices have smart phones. Two decades ago they did not.
What could be a watershed case – Carpenter is going to be decided this term.
Right now the decision looks to be 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Carpenter.
That would be a massive revesral on individual privacy rights in 3rd party collected data.
It should be noted that any outcome in Carpenter is going to invalidate some prior precident.
SCOTUS already ruled that the police may not put a GPS tracker on someones care without a warrant. Carpenter is essentially arguing you can not track me without a warrant.
But there are myriads of cases that say government can usually access third party collected data on you without a warrant.
We may be seeing a reversal with Carpenter – because the amount or information that 3rd parties now have on us is so vast. As has been noted from Cell logs you can learn a great deal about very personal aspects of someones life.
It is starting to seem very personal to Supreme Court Judges.
This is also a reason we need to end the war on drugs.
Most of our most egregious rights violations would diminish dramativally if we did.
There is virtually no use for asset forfeiture – except as a tool in the war on drugs.
But for the war on drugs money laundering would not even be considered a crime – and should not be.
Without the war on drugs we would have almost no police swat teams and swatting,.
Nearly all search warrants are issues to search for drugs.
No know warrants are about drugs.
Thanks, Dave, that was an excellent series of posts. Much of the info is stuff that I have read about, but wasn’t quite able to put it into context, as you have. Much of what I worry about is contained in this quote from you comments:
“We litterally have the media and the left arguing that something that Trump and Obama have both done is obstruction of justice when Trump did it, and not when Obama did it.”
This idea that politics is blood sport, and we all ‘wear the colors’ of ‘our team’, and see things differently, depending upon which side does what, is not particularly new….not new at all, really.
So, for example, I see the Wolff book as a gossipy work of partial fiction, which should be read as such, given that much of it is likely untrue, and we don’t know which parts are true and which are false (unless Wolff releases the tapes that he says he has). Jay agrees that portions of the book may be fiction or exaggeration, but still sees it as evidence that Trump should be removed from office, because the book shows that he is “mentally unstable.” No doubt, if the book were about Obama or Clinton, our perceptions might be completely reversed.
The real problem is something that Devin Nunes referred to a week or so ago, which is: “Who is watching the watchmen?” ( I think the phrase may ven come from a Star Trek episode, lol).
The FBI, of all government agencies, has always had the potential to turn the US into a quasi-police state. I’m not under the delusion that politics have not played a role in the FBI ~ Hoover is often cited as the prime example of this. However, I would say that James Comey is perhaps more of a partisan political actor than Hoover was. Hoover gathered dirt on presidents and other political leaders, to hold over their heads and exert power over them. Comey appears to have aligned himself with one “team” and skewed the entire investigative process of the agency, to ensure that his team wins, and his opponents lose, irrespective of the rule of law.
Additionally, under Obama we had James Brennan at CIA,, an obvious partisan, and James Clapper as DNI ( a fairly pointless position) who literally admitted to committing perjury, yet stayed in his position because Obama said that his perjury wasn’t so bad, because Clapper was protecting an important program.
So, the “watchmen” no longer seem guided by the rule of law, but by the whims of politics. Trump has complained that Sessions is not “protecting” him, the way that Holder protected Obama. Well, news flash, the AG is not supposed to protect an individual president, but to protect the rule of law.
If I were Trump, I would probably feel the same way….but it’s a dangerous precedent.
Thank you.
I would note with the mass surveilance posts.
Though I think what I said is accurate – we have the law and we have what they tell us they do, we do not really know what they actually do.
At the same time – though I would reign in mass data collection severely, the “problem” is not mostly at the NSA. The problem is with intelligence consumers not producers.
I am far less concerned about what Rogers was addressing – though it is still a problem.
It is not what random employees at NSA are querying that matters.
It is what they are providing to Intelligence consumers.
The expectation is NSA queries even if done correctly are going to produce information that can not be forwarded to intelligence consumers without violating the 4th amendment.
The “unmasking” is the serious problem – as there are few legitimate intelligence reasons for an intelligence consumer to want to know the identity of a US person.
.
It is very hard to not let our Tribe color out perceptions.
But most of us think we are good at it and we are not.
Even being libertarian – not democrat or republican does not protect me from confirmation biases.
We are all really good – or think we are, at seeing those biases in others.
It is very important to look at everything that is going on and say – If this was Obama rather than Trump would we be saying the same thing ?
It is also important to grasp that there are legitimate political efforts to besmirch the other party, and illegitimate one.
Congress as an example is political. While I think that Congresses investigations of Benghazi and the Email server were reasonable, I do not doubt that republicans were seeking to handicap Clinton. I do not have a problem with democrats in congress trying to handicap Trump.
I do have a major problem when political conduct that would be acceptable on a house or senate committee is occuring in the DOJ/FBI/SC
A criminal investigation is different from a political one.
I think we made a mistake when we shifted from the Independent Council to the Special council.
Starr was technically part of the legislative branch. the Special Council is part of the executive.
I think that congress needs to be able to appoint “investigators”. But these should operate little different from congressional committees – except more strealined and faster.
They can subpeona, they can question witnesses. they can convene grand juries.
But they can not “prosecute”. They are not a criminal investigative procedure.
They therefore are less bound to protect individual rights – though they would still need court approval for searches and seizures.
I would care less if they were partisan. The public would hopefully know that.
But a prosecution in DOJ or a special counsel MUST follow constitutional norms. There can be no hint of politics. They must investigate and prosecute actual crimes.
I find it terrifying that Clinton who quite obviously as a public servant acted badly, committing crimes, had every benefit that one would get from a political rather than criminal investigation.
While Trump who thus far all we have is political issues, is subject to a rigorous criminal investigation.
I find it odd that Jay and others do not see that whatever is allowed by the left regarding Trump, will become the norm in the future.
Clinton and her staff would be serviing long sentence had a Mueller type SC gone after her.
We can not have two standards.
Holder is going to be remembered forever as a political hack.
I have very serious and large policiy differences with Sessions. But he actually has integrity.
Stop the Presses!
Burn the Books!
Put on Blinders!
So Sez the tRUMP Admin!
The Bannon issue might have some teeth, if Bannon signed and NDA.
I doubt Wolff did. Though I do not know – broad access usually comes with constraints.
Regardless, in both instances the defamation claims are not going anywhere.
You can lie about a public figure absent strong evidence of malice it will not matter.
An NDA prevents the signee from passing on ‘truthful ‘ info about the protected individual.
But Schlump is accusing Bannon of making up lies.
Does an NDA apply to lies?
He can try to sue him for defamation.
But then those conversations are admissible as testimony.
If Bannon waits, Schlumpo will forget and forgive him.just a lovers spat that some hugging and kissing will make better. 😙😍😚💘💖💞
Nope! an NDA is just a contract. It can have any terms the parties agree on.
It is not unsual for an NDA to bar talking about something at all.
Lying is not usually a way to circumvent and NDA.
I am presuming you have never signed an NDA. I sign several a year.
The Cukcoo In Chief Speaks:
SONG FOR THE AGES:
Grumpy and Bannon were Sweethearts
Lordy how they could Love
But they got tired of sucking each Other
And Bannon spat out Trumpy’s Dick (on tape!)
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-steve-bannon-michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-audio-recording-770431
My understanding is that Bannon and Trump have already kidded and made up – but I may be wrong. Who can trust the news !
It is not even possible to Trust that Wolff’s quotes are real much less accurate, he has a reputation for making up flamboyant quotes. Particularly about public figures who really can not sue for defamation.
Regardless, I am sure Wolff will make alot of money and the left will be all a twitter.
Everyone agree?
Kasich: Chaos and disruption circling WH
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/01/04/john-kasich-wh-chaos-and-disruption-lead.cnn
No. do not agree. I think Trump has actually had a pretty good first year.
His deregulatory efforts alone are likely the impetus for the growing economy.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/04/can-the-trump-deregulatory-boom-save-the-gop-in-2018/
Kasich was my guy, and I still agree with most of his opinions including this one.
I was rooting for him to do better securing the nomination too.
The primary drivers that brought Trump to the whitehouse were the left.
The mistakes and methods of the left empowered Trump even during the primary.
The lefts efforts to corronate “corrupt clinton” – increased the odds of Trump.
The left labeling half the country “hateful, hating haters’ increased support for the very UN-PC Trump.
Even now the left does not understand the extent to which their attacks on Trump are making him stronger.
One of the things that
If you strike the king, kill the king,
means is that if you do not kill the king they will come back twice as strong.
I do not know that we are yet at the last gasps of Trump/Russia Collusion – but we are close.
Further we NOW have a DOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA Obama administration collusion to give Hillary the Election and to try to harm Trump. AND we know it was politically motivated.
So long as the Mueller investigation continues – congresses investigations into the FBI/DOJ/… will also continue. Unlike the Trump/Russia investigation, time and exposure to light uncover more evidence that fits together, rather than brief fits of hysteria that quickly collapse.
If the left wished to continue this through the 2018 election, Republicans could be going in with a strong economy and strong evidence of wide spread political corruption within the obama administration.
Trump/Russia could easily be replaced by a real conspiracy and collusion between a campaing and the government.
I recently linked to an academic paper and study by Prof. Haidt that demonstrated that diversity of view – polarization leads to BETTER decsion making overall.
Haidt’s work does little more than factually confirm what John Stuart Mill argued in “On Liberty”.
That even the truth suffers, becoming weak and muddled when it is not constantly challenged strongly by well argued alternate views.
So no I really do not care much about polarization.
Further I think Kaisich is wrong about Republican support in congress and elsewhere.
Trump’s favorables have risen 5 points in the past 3 weeks.
Whether it results in prosecutions or not, whether a formal conspiracy is ever establiished it is increasingly clear to congress – particularly republicans, and the people – particularly those who voted for Trump, that the only collusion and conspiracy and election interferance in 2016 heavily favored Hillary, and heavily involved the Obama administration.
Trump Russia collusion may not be dead – but it has emphazema.
The Fusion GPS NYT editorial, as well as the recent “no it was papadoulis, no it was carter page” editorials are all parts of likely last gasps.
Less than a year ago NYT actually wrote (based on current and former administration sources) that the Steele Dossier was the basis for the FISA warrants. They just beleived that the FBI had corroberated it first.
It is increasingly evident – that FBI did use it, and that they did not verify anything.
We know papadoulis had nothing to do with the FBI warrants – the FBI had zero interest in Papasoulis until long after Trump was elected. They did not interview him until after Trump’s innauguration. You can not use a diplomats hearsay assertions about a drunken barroom conversation as the basis for a warrant. Nor are the facts alleged in that conversation sufficient for a warrant.
The Carter Page meme died long ago. Page has extensively testified under oath, and his testimony is publicly available. Mueller has quite clearly left page alone – because Page is truthful and credible and damning.
Trump and Republicans have worked together to pass tax reform.
While the left thinks it is going into the 2018 election cycle with a following wave, this election will test the importance of reality versus words.
Republicans and Trump have done more than any president or party in a long time to give themselves a strong economy in Nov 2018
Democrats will go in trying to sell anger at Trump.
I do not expect much to happen in congress in 2018. Though maybe a little in January if Democrats are capable of compromising to get some of what they want.
I am not sure I think that is possible, and Republicans are not likely strong enough to act aggresively on their own, so little will happen.
A verification of one Wolff report:
https://twitter.com/janicemin/status/949005110671126528
I really do not care if it is 100% correct. though I doubt it is.
I also doubt it is 100% fabrication.
It is like docudrama’s – somethings are true, some not, some “truish”.
Personally I do not care. Wolff is likely to do really well.
The more fights and pissing the better he will do.
You will decide it is all gospel – especially the parts you think are damaging.
I do not make the mistake of presuming that I can trust a docudrama.
I know some of it is true – but unless I otherwise know the story I do not know what parts are true and what not, and what is exagerated.
Hummm. What does Perry Mason think, Dave?
Mr. Klain needs to return to law school – as well as recheck his grammar.
This
“No one is violating a contractual non-disclosure provision if they are disclosing things that you say didn’t happen. So, pick a theory.”
is not the same as this
“No one is violating a contractual non-disclosure provision if they are disclosing things that didn’t happen. So, pick a theory.”
The latter is closer to often (not always) legally true.
Lying can actually violate a non-disclosure.
Whether it does or not depends on the specific non-disclosure.
Mr. Klain is confusing defamation and non-disclosure.
I know that we’ll have another 2 or 3 days of this Wolff book news, but it’s going to blow over. Sorry, Jay, but it will.
There’s always some new gossipy stuff about Trump, and it always blows over. I honestly think that, as long as the narrative on this book becomes “Wolff made sh*t up,” by the time the story blows over, Trump will just move on.
I think that Trump is a little crazy, in the sense that anyone who thinks that he can just run for president in his very first election and actually win is crazy… but, hey, sometimes crazy ideas work. As Ron has pointed out, you have to be a little crazy to even WANT to be president. And anyone who thinks that Trump didn’t figure out the way he could win, and then work his butt off to make it happen, is crazier than he is.
I also think that Bannon has done himself way more harm than he’s done Trump. Pretty much nobody thinks that meeting with a Russian lawyer who claims to have oppo dirt is treason or unpatriotic. So, if Bannon actually said that, it was obviously because he hates Junior and Jared, and he obviously hates them because he thinks that he deserved more credit than they did for Trump’s victory.
I’m guessing that the first few months of Trump’s presidency was sort of like The Beverly Hillbillies….all of a sudden, all of these people who are not politicians, show up in the West Wing, and are acting like they’re in charge. And it probably was pretty chaotic, and probably still is, although less so since General Kelly took over as Chief of Staff.
I mean, the Trump’s are a larger than life family, and have always been thought of as gauche outsiders, not fit for “polite society”. A lot of the hatred toward Trump is just snobbery and people thinking that they are smarter than he is, so why the hell is HE president? So, I’m not surprised that Steve Bannon (who, by the way, looks like he’s got a perpetual hangover) thinks that he’s smarter than Trump, his sons and his son-in-law put together.
And all the talk about #PresidentPooPoo’s disintegrating mental condition – won’t that help him with an insanity defense if he gets indicted? 🤪🤪🤪🤪
Trump is no less sane than most of his critics.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/justice-department-looking-into-hillary-clintons-emails-again
Finally an investigation that might turn up something illegal.
My bet is on Trump and the Clintons meeting under the cover of darkness with the Clintons entering through the infamous tunnel JFK used for his female companionship and during that meeting they will agree that the Clinton E-mail issue will disappear if the Russia Russia Russia investigation just fizzles out. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours just like all the other happenings in DC.
I doubt Hillary wants to spend 5-6 months in prison like Martha Stewart who only lied during an investigation.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/20/in-political-correctness-debate-most-americans-think-too-many-people-are-easily-offended/
So the entire Fusion GPS NYT editorial is just a lie.
Fusion demanded a closed door hearing.
Fusion demanded that Transcripts not be released.
Fusion Took the 5th several times.
Grassley is perfectly willing to allow Fushion to testify in an open hearing whenever they wish.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/chuck-grassley-fusion-gps-322076
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-needs-a-balanced-budget-amendment/2018/01/03/0bd7045c-efe8-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.55631aba39e1
Starting the morning off with a laff
America in Present Time.
The problem with your cartoon is te problem with the left.
Trump SAYS lots of things that are offensive.
But he does not DO anything
If Trump had ever sought to ban a book. restrict a license shutdown a voice of opposition.
As opposed to just saying those stupid things.
I would likely be right with you in seeking his impeachment.
Trump often TALKS like a very dangerous totalitarian.
But he does not ACT like one.
In contrast Obama TALKS like a will mannered reserved thoughful person.
But he ACTED far more totalitarian than Trump.
If Trump has the IRS slow walk the 501(c)3 applications of competing political action groups
You and I would immediately seek his impeachment.
But Obama actually did that and was not impeached or really investigated.
If Trump sought to use Executive Orders to expand the power of the federal government you and I would seek his impeachment
But Obama actually did that.
In area after area that would result in my joining the left to impeach Trump,
Trump has done nothing more than speak badly.
But Obama and democrats have actually ACTED badly.
Trump TALKS like an authoritarian/totalitarian.
But he does not ACT like one.
Look at all you Trump posts/cartoons.
They are practically all about what Trump has SAID.
They are not about what he has DONE.
Who is the racist ?
The person who says “I want to kill blacks”, and then hires them.
or the person who says “I want to hire blacks”, and then kills them ?
No Jay – the opposite is true – everyone who says Trump is an idiot – proves themselves to be and idiot.
Trump is obnoxious, he is narcisistic, he is self agrandizing, he is many many things.
But he is not an idiot.
Trump has been successful in Multiple different areas. He has been a Wildly successful real esate developer, He has been a successful reality TV star, he has been a successful Beauty paegent producer, and he has been a successful politician.
He has done what many thought was impossible over and over.
Once – might be luck. But repeated successes in many fields – the only explanation for that is intelligence. Trump is not an idiot. But those who call him an idiot are.
Now Dave, stop being so narrow minded (idiotic syn)
Smart people can do idiotic things.
Smart in some ways idiotic in others is common.
Like you, well read, voluble, but idiotic in judgement.
Idiocy isn’t confined to intelligence, you do understand that correct?
Please, no idiotic picayune responses.
The NYT article you linked says He’s and idiot.
Not he does idiotic things.
You made my point.
“Now Dave, stop being so narrow minded (idiotic syn)”
Not narrow minded, I am capable of seeing myriads of ways of solving most any problem that do not require force or government.
Narrow minded would be seeing government as always the solution.
“Like you, well read, voluble, but idiotic in judgement.”
We disagree on the facts – that is not an issue of judgement.
That is an inability to see the real world on your part.
“Idiocy isn’t confined to intelligence, you do understand that correct?
Please, no idiotic picayune responses.”
Picayune is the appropriate response to arguments that depend on bad word use and misunderstanding of reality.
UN indicted Co Conspirator
There is no “obstructing a snipe hunt” crime.
Until you have a shred of evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to alter the outcome of the election all you have is a partisan witch hunt.
The only prosecutions we should see – are for those who abused federal law enforcement to hunt for their political enemies.
It is a long way to go….since no one has been indicted for obstruction. Not Papawhateverhisnameis, not Manafort, not Flynn.
What was obstructed ?
Are we really going to criminalize interference in one parties excercises in wish fullfilment ?
I would further question – given that it is increasingly evident that the DOJ/FBI was operating outside the law – are we really going to criminalize the obstruction of lawlessness ?
The ignores that Obstruction has a meaning – it is not opposed the result I want.
No one has been indicted for anything having anything to do with the actual purpose of the investigation.
Common Pricilla, these are seedy people you’re defending.
It’s shameful, really it is.
You should reject them.
“Common(sic) Pricilla, these are seedy people you’re defending.
It’s shameful, really it is.
You should reject them.”
I think you meant disreputable or something similar rather than seedy.
Regardless it is not shameful to defend someone from a false accusation;
No matter how “seedy” they are.
We do not reject truth just because w e do not like the messenger.
We do not execute people because they shop lift.
I do not have to like someone or thing they are a good person to defend them from false or unproven allegations.
It is meritorious to defend someone from false allegations.
Especially if they are disreputable.
Jay;
You and yours can not even identify a specific crime.
I do not know what will happen. I think Mueller is stubborn and not that sharp. He has a reputation – now that we are actually learning about him, or poor decisions and bad prosecutions that he loses. His Manafort indictment resembles his prior work – bad prosecutions and bad law and bad legal theories that ultimately fail.
It will be very bad for the country is Mueller decides to indict and prosecute under some highly dubious legal theory. And it is near certain he will fail.
I think Trump is probably out of actual danger of impeachment now – because no matter what happens in Nov. alot of republicans are going to be needed to remove Trump
And Republican congressmen have gotten past their initial issues with Trump and realize there is nothing there. That this is a political witchhunt with no evidence based on dubious arguments and Trump hatred
We can not govern this way. We are in danger of becoming a banana republic – with the left driving nonsense.
Regardless, Obstruction of what ?
Yes, you are making the rest of us very angry.
Because you are pressing hard on absolute nonsense. And there is a remote possibility that Trump hatred will oversome sanity and you make actually succeed.
So let me be clear. If you actually succeed in Impeaching and removing Trump without something you do not have yet and are farther from than you were in 2016,
You will have created two massively dangerous and irrepairable problems.
The first is you will have shredded the rule of law.
I am increasingly dubious that we can not fix the overreach of government and the nonsensical way we mangle law as pushed by the left without a catastrophe.
Nations do not tend to self correct – even from egregious errors short of catastrophe.
If you take out Trump this way – this approach will become the norm, and no one is safe.
Using the lax legal standards you are using regarding Trump – clinton would not have survived 15 min as president.
But you do not seem to care.
I do want much more aggressive prosecution of criminal conduct in government.
But I do expect those prosecuting to actually prosecute an actual crime.
The left has gone Full Berria – show me the man and I will show you the crime.
You are very dangerous.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/5/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-author-admits-not-all-/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
Well ain’t this a bummer for the “impeach Trump at any cost” crowd.
Keep your powder dry guys for awhile. You still can’t see the whites of their eyes yet!
I’ll wait until something actually happens instead of just spreading conservative and liberal BS from the talking head programs that sells advertising, but does little else except further divides an extremely divided country already..
I do not understand this.
I do not understand the Trump/Bannon feud that errupted from it.
That was actually stupid on Trump’s part.
That the Left wants to treat Mr. Wolff’s gossip as sworn testimony is par for the left course.
That anyone else would take it seriously is disturbing.
Fire and Fury titiates – it is supposed to.
If you want to beleive it is probably a good read. If you want a couple of hours of having your passions inflamed and having your biases confirmed – Mr. Wolff will be happy to take your money, and everyone will be happy.
But why this is being treated as significant is beyond me.
If the National Enquirer reported that Trump had 6 heads would the left demand Mueller investigate ?
The only part of this that concerns me is that Trump appears to have taken some of it seriously.
Someone who pranks the media constantly should not so easily be pranked himself.
“That was actually stupid on Trump’s part.”
But you just got finished telling me a guy as successful as Schlump has to be smart enough not to act idiotically.
Guess you’re confused
“But you just got finished telling me a guy as successful as Schlump has to be smart enough not to act idiotically.
Guess you’re confused”
I do not know a “Schlump”. If Trans people are entitled to be refered to by their prefered pronoun, the president is entitled to be refered to by name.
Regardless, I said Trump was smart – that is actually obvious.
I did not say he was perfect.
I am not confused you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. It is called lying.
Jay, I don’t think you have seen this and if not, did not want you missing it since it appears to be from someone you may have high regards for. It is also longer than 280 characters (or whatever twitter has now) so it takes longer to read.
http://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-apos-apos-dementia-151042160.html
😊
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/949389103065370625
So is this something that was in the Wolff book? It’s not very believable that Sessions would say such a thing.
But, in your excitement over the book, you may have missed the criminal investigation referral made to the DOJ by Senators Grassley and Graham, on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee , against Christopher Steele for false statements to the FBI.
The referral for investigation comes after the Committee finally received certain documents that the FBI has withheld for months, and probably means that there are inconsistencies in what the FBI has told the committee and what was contained in the documents.
Democrats on the committee are setting their hair on fire over this, no big surprise. They were not given a heads-up, apparently so that that they wouldn’t call the media and start spinning.
Lindsey Graham, one of the most moderate of GOP Senators, issued an additional, separate statement, calling for a Special Counsel to look into how the DOJ handled the Dossier.
http://www.businessinsider.com/dossier-author-chris-steele-referred-to-doj-by-grassley-and-graham-2018-1
Whether Mr. Wittes agrees or not – the statement is FALSE.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the AG criticising a FORMER FBI head who has demonstrably leaked classified information, and lied under oath.
Only the left thinks that telling the truth about people is smearing them.
I do not seem to recall the left thinking that criticising Hoover was a bad thing, Or Meese, or Ashcroft.
Also logic fails the author. Criticising Comey does nto delegitimize an ongoing investigation.
Separately the investigation itself has never been legitimate.
No one is able to identify the crime that is being investisgated.
That makes it an illegitimate political investigation hoping to find a crime.
What is self evident is that the valies and principles held at the top of the FBI and DOJ for years have been corrupt. Calling that out is a service.
I find it hilarious that the Tweeter thinks it is hypocracy to criticise the FBI after criticising the FBI.
The FBI has been attacked for political corruption – because it is clear that the top of th FBI has been politically corrupt.
Playing ostrich and hiding from the obvious does nto change vice into virtue.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/921592/
Great thinking!
James Mattis is an amazing guy.
President Mentally Defective just asked Congress for 18 Billion for the Wall. In exchange he’ll help out the dreamer Kids (he didn’t say how he’d help them).
But no MENTION that Mexico would reimburse us the 18 Bil.
Wasn’t that a campaign promise?
I do not beleive the wall is the solution to our problems.
Though I do expect it could substantially reduce the cost of border security.
Regardless of all the wasteful spending we engage in, this is not at the top of my list.
I would be happy to give Trump and Republians a wall – as was promised 40 years ago to get past this issue.
With respect to the Dreamers – that is trivial – he is agreeing not to veto legislation regarding them.
The wall was a campaign promise too.
He said MEXICO WOULD PAY FOR IT!
That was a strongly repeated PROMISE.
Yeah I know, your ends justify his lying means
“He said MEXICO WOULD PAY FOR IT!
That was a strongly repeated PROMISE.
Yeah I know, your ends justify his lying means”:
He did say that.
Just as Obama said “if you like your doctor you can keep them” or “If you like your insurance you can keep it” or “the average family will save $2500.yr”
All lies.
Just as with Obama – you can impeach him for campaign lies.
Or if you voted for him because of that promise you can change your vote in 2020.
Those are the available remedies.
I am not “justifying” anything.
I think political candidates should not make promises they can not keep and the people should hold them accountable.
But in the real world that does not happen.
And I am not going all full foaming at the mouth and spewing spittle, because someone I did not vote for is not keeping a minor promise no one seriously expected he would keep.
What will be more interesting and we should see in the next month or so, is the extent to which the wall features in the budget legislation.
Are democrats willing to tank DADA and shut down the government over the wall ?
It Trump ?
We will see.
But all that is politics – not crime.
I’m curious, and I’m sure Dave will know: how many medical,professionals questioned Bush1 or Bush2 mental state in office?
Clinton?
Okbama?
Did any previous president in our lifetimes try to stop a book critical of them from publication?
We’re any of them overheard trying to seduce friend’s wives with telephone ploys?
(I like the word ploy, I think I’m going to use it more often).
Has their ever been a mogul magnate who was a bigger moron in the presidency?
Please advise…
It took about 30s to find this. I am sure there are other examples.
http://rense.com/general15/hillarytriedtostop.htm
and another 30s to find this
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/bill-clintons-white-house-felt-like-a-brothel-former-secret-service-agent-claims/news-story/85c370e2c854c3a569e8cc696444ea44
And I am absolutely certain I can find stories about Biden worse than whatever you are claiming regarding Trump.
“Has their ever been a mogul magnate who was a bigger moron in the presidency?”
Fallacy – loaded question. i.e. the argument is a “ploy”
Stories about the mental state of presidents are quite common.
You heard few about Obama – because he was young, black and impossible to criticise without being called racist.
Regardless, the shift away from Russia to this mental garbage is a symptom that your attacks on Trump are failing.
https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2018/01/05/has-president-trump-lost-his-mind-or-has-cnn-lost-its-bearings-n2430585?dg
And those of you who enabled him woth rationalizations will go down in history with the same contempt we hold for those whom enabled prohibition
No one has contempt for those who enabled Prohibition, Jay…although, it was a very bad idea. Just like Obama’s decision to enable narcoterror drug trafficking was a very bad idea, and has led to thousands of deaths….but do I blame you? 😇 Of course not.
Why is it so important for you to blame everyday people, and deride your fellow citizens, for everything that you feel is wrong with Trump and his administration?
Progressives always do this when a Republican is president. ~ it’s like the “He’s Not My President” movement during the George Bush years. It’s as if you have some deep-seated need to be better, more moral and smarter than anyone who doesn’t buy into your political orthodoxy… but when it turns out that you’re wrong? Oh, well, no big deal.
But, I digress….Name me one thing that Trump has done to “undermine our Constitution,” and be prepared to back it up. ( I actually am pretty sure that you won’t do this, but it would be fun to see you try.)
Priscilla;
I have contempt for anyone who choses to restrict the actions of another that harm no one but themselves.
I have contermpt for the prohibitionists.
The harms that arrise from prohibition of any kind are predictable.
I do not know the specific criticism you are making of Obama.
But Sessions efforts to more heavily more back to drug prohibition are immoral and contemptable.
I have no problem with holding people accountable for what they are responsible for.
Whether that is one form of prohibisionist on the right or another on the left.
It si the same, and it is morally bankrupt and will always lead to greater harm and usually crime and violence.
But there is a difference between moral condemnation of the bad ideas with bad outcomes associated with specific ideologies and criticising people as individuals.
I have contempt for prohibition and those who impose it on others.
IF you are one of those – I hold you in contempt.
If you wish to escape my contempt – do not impose a contemptible idea on others by force.
There is nothing wrong with attacking people, so long as you are attacking them for their bad conduct. Even if that conduct is imposing failed ideas on others by force.
If you wish to argue for voluntary prohibition – not only won’t I attack you, but I will support you.
There is a huge moral difference between the DEA and Narcotics Anonymous.
The former are evil, and the later – atleast in their private actions good.
Even though both seek to fix the same problem and even seek the same end.
The means of one is immoral because it uses force while the other is voluntary and moral
Implying that anyone who voted for or agreed with those who passed Prohibition should be “held in contempt,” is wrongheaded, and implies that those who did so were willfully enabling all of the bad consequences that arose from the passage of the 21st Amendment.
Should Californians who voted for the legalization of recreational marijuana be held in contempt for all of the adverse consequences that will result from it? Colorado has suffered a massive increase in car crash fatalities, attributable to marijuana-impaired drivers. Accidental poisoning of children and animals from the consumption of marijuana treats packaged as harmless sweets are common.
Big Pot has followed the playbook of Big Tobacco, by suppressing studies that show potential long term brain damage to young people who use marijuana during adolescence and even early adulthood. Are all of those “Yes” voters personally accountable and contemptible for the public health crises that might arise from the passage of Prop 64?
Are those voters who pass legalization proposals willfully enabling all of the deaths, damage and potential health issues that may result from their vote?
Jay can personally hold in contempt anyone that he damn well pleases. Just as I hold in contempt his assertion that there is some sort of moral imperative that renders anyone who voted for Trump to be traitorous. I hold that in contempt because it’s stupid as as well as wrong.
Priscilla, please don’t fall into the trap of believing anything that is published in the media until there has been proven science that something is a result of another action.
Concerning Colorado increasing auto deaths. From 2010 to 2017, the population of Colorado has increased from 5 million to 5.6 million (est). Of that growth, over 200,000 is from 2015. That is an increase of 12%. for the 7 year period.
Over the same period, the number of impaired driving court convictions dropped from 26,062 in 2012 to 19,876 in 2016.
I could not find any data on the internet concerning miles driven historically in Colorado, but given the fact that the population increased 12% in seven years and a significant portion of that was the past 2 years, it would stand that the number of miles driven in the state would also increase.
Finally concerning traffic deaths, the following statement was in a recent article from a Colorado paper. “In January, CDOT’s then-executive director, Shailen Bhatt, blamed last year’s increase in road deaths on an “epidemic of distracted driving.” And distracted drving in most cases today is not messing with a radio, talking to your kids or some other issue, it is cell phone usage. And the increase in traffic deaths in Colorado track very well with the increased usage of cell phones in this country.
Before accepting the fact that marijuana has played a part in traffic deaths, what part does the increased population resulting in more cars on the road, increased cell phone usage while driving and decreased enforcement of impaired while driving laws have on the increased deaths in Colorado.
As for the issue with marijuana and tobacco, there is a very small correlation between these industries. I had a good friend that worked as a chemist at RJ Reynolds where Winston, Camel and Salem brands of cigarettes were produced. Knowing what he did in his job, there was only one reason they needed chemists. Finding new “stuff” to add to cigarettes to make them more addictive and to improve the experience in smoking. There is little information other than government propaganda that indicates marijuana is anywhere close to the dangers of tobacco.
So lets prohibit the worst of the worse. 1) tobacco, 2) Alcohol, 3) marijuana and then work down through the fatty foods. But start with #1 first before the others. You think that would ever happen, or does the tax revenues the feds get offset the fact that tobacco and alcohol kill many more people than marijuana????
Ron
Thanks for checking the facts on Colorado.
People lie about facts and statistics all the time.
That is one of the reasons you can find some counter factual to every actual fact.
That is part of why one needs to look at more than claimed facts, but how they fit consistent with the rest of what we actually know.
It is usually possible to tell which “facts” are actually lies.
As to Prohibition – it is always a bad idea.
Further taxing the crap out of “vices” is also bad.
Why should people have to pay more to do something you do not want them to do that they do want to do ?
While I wi9ll support pot taxes and cigarette taxes and sex taxes to get “vices” legalized.
All deviations from flat taxes, no subsidies, no deductions, utlimately substitutes the judgement of the elites for that of individuals and improperly distorts the market.
It is not your business or mine to decide what someone else many or may not do, nor how much they most pay extra because I do not like what they do.
Dave the one thing that being on other social media sites has taught me is there are more liars than there are truthful people when someone wants to support a position. I got caught too many times when I first started using the internet when I would take something someone said and thought it was true. Even fact checking sites don’t always provide the truth in many instances.
A few things marijuana has going against it are the “hippie” experience, the fact the feds are against it and the fact that big pharma has a vested interest in making damn sure medical marijuana never hits the market. How many millions will they lose in sales if medical cannibals oil becomes legal nationally and it replaces anti-seizure drugs that are much less effective. How many millions more will they lose on anti nausea drugs for patients on chemo who buy marijuana. And then there is pain management where this could take the place of opioids that big pharma makes millions.
Jeff Sessions is an absolute idiot and the decision he made should never have been done until something was worked out in congress for a vote on the subject to make it a states right issue just like alcohol. I just find it very interesting how people can say things on one hand about the long arm of government and how government needs to be made smaller, and then turn around and make decisions that increase the impact on government in our lives.
It won’t take long before a father or mother will get caught by the feds buying cannabis oil from a legal state for their child who suffers from multiple daily seizures without the drug. They will get put in jail, fined or worse, threatened by having the child removed from their care if they continue to provide that treatment. Right now more than 60% of americans believe this should be a state issue and when some heart stopping stories about kids being impacted by the long arm of the feds, the support will rise considerably.
Calling something a lie and calling someone a liar are significantly different.
I am very disturbed that so many people say things that can easily be established as lies.
I am disturbed that people say so many things that are completely inconsistent with what they said a few posts ago.
I am distrubed that they say so many things inconsistent with easily observable reality.
I think that making a statement that is easily verifiable as false, that is not consistent with something you posted minutes ago, that is not consistent with reality is immoral.
But I am not jumping to call them liars.
Most people beleive the false things they say. Not only that but they are surrounded by many others who beleive the same.
This is one of he reasons that we need to get outside of bubbles.
If your world is one in which people do not feel free to express views outside of a narrow norm, or worse still where the bubble is so narrow there are no people who would speak outside your narrow norm – then it is near certain much of what you know or think you know is atleast partly wrong. The truth can not survive without challenge.
JS Mill notes that in “on liberty” and the Haidt paper on polarization I posted demonstrates the same with data.
Knowledge fails without challenges.
One of the great attributes of this country is the diversity that freedom fosters.
Not merely racial or cultural diversity – but ALL forms of diversity – particularly diversity of though.
Every means by which we become more of a mono-culture – whether racial, religious or political makes us LESS.
We are better as a whole – polarized and hating each other, than in 100% agreement.
Fact checking sites are crap.
Even places like wikipedia which I rely on heavily are heavily biased.
Fortunately outside of very controversial subjects it does not usually matter.
The political fact checkers are completely useless.
That NYT one of the most reputable papers in the world can publish three different stories in 6 months claiming 3 different explanations for the same thing, all with atleast half a dozen reliable sources. demonstrates the crappy state of fact checking.
Either it is not done, or facts have become so maleable from the perspective of the media that fact checking is meaningless.
Regardless, you do not check facts with a fact checker.
Facts are checked because they can stand up to scrutiny when attacked by someone who does nto accept them. That does not mean you must persuade the other person.
Only that you are open to revise your position when presented with evidence that requires change and having heard the best counters nothing brings your choices into question.
But that requires actually looking for inconsistencies and committing yourself to revise your thoughts when they are found.
Few people do that.
Dave, yes there are lies and liars. I do not believe someone who see something on a social site and “like or shares” that is a liar. However, those that created the message or those that fkrwrded it knowing it to be an untruth are indeed liars. And that happens way too much because so many are uninformed, gullible and believe whatever is on the internet.
And most of what I reference can be verified in just a couple clicks and entries to a search
With respect to drugs and particularly Marijuana you missed the police and prison industrial complex.
Full decriminalization in the US would result in the unemployment of MINIMALLY 1/3 of our police and 1/3 of our prison staff. Incarcerating people for drugs is both big business and big employment.
Violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause
Violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause
Dum Dum has ignored them. $$$ millions in payment to Trump Organization hotels, golf courses, resorts around the world and at home. $$$Millions spent at his own golf courses and hotels by the SS to protect him and family that goes into their pockets.The domestic emoluments clauses prohibits a sitting president from accepting compensation beyond that of his salary. His new hotel in Washington, D.C. hosts multiple foreign dignitaries and government officials. There’s more but I haven’t Time or inclination to keep listing them.
Undermining theConstitutional Freedom of the Press and Speech.
Not only attacks on the mainstream media and constant cries of “fake news” but threats to remove broadcasting licensing. Telling Comey to jail journalists who published government leaks. Threatening lawsuit to stop publication of a book critical of him.
Inappropriate Use Of Constitutional Pardoning Power
The pardon of Joe Arpaio,former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz. Pardoning this creep convicted of criminal contempt was a violation of his duties as president under Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, which requires that he “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The father of our Constitution and former President James Madison described impeachment as the proper response to a president’s abuse of the pardon power. Congress should take that advice.
The 25th Amendment..
Do you see his Captain Queeg tweets today or not?
The emoluments clause cases have been dismissed – because they lack merit.
I know you do not understand this – but the law and constitution mean what they actually say – not what you want them to say.
As things stand Trump owns many many businesses – and those businesses make money,
That is legal. They make money from people some of whom are or have connections to government.
George Washinton asked a british official to find renters for his land while president.
JFK owned the chigago merchantile exchange while president.
As things are he is no different from most prior US presidents
Andrew Mellon was Treasury Secretary from 1921-1932
If you do not want Trump to be able to continue to own businesses that may prosper during his presidency – then change the constitution.
But cut this garbage that Trump is somehow special, that his acts alone unlike the same from myriads of prior presidents are somehow improper or criminal.
Do you think Trump knows the guest list of these properties ?
Do you think Bill Clinton knows who paid his speaking fees ?
Do you think Hillary knew who contributed to Clinton Foundation ?
Do you think if Hillary had been elected that would have changed anything regarding these hotels ?
The excercise of free speach of one person is NOT the constraint of free speach of another – no matter what they chose to say.
Moogie has demanded that Rick block me.
While her remarks are stupid speach, they are still just speach.
If Rick who actually has the power to do so, repeatedly threatened to block me – that would still be free speach. It is only if he ACTED that it would constitute an attack on free speach.
Wilson actually jailed people for what they said – I would suggest learning some history.
Wilson was a progressive and he jailed Eugene Debbs for denouncing US participation in WWI and Harding a republican pardoned him.
BTW Trump’s constant use of “fake news” is entirely appropriate.
The NYT in particular has gone completely off its rocker and is increasingly indistinguishable from Alex Jones or Brietbart.
I can not count the number of stories citing numerous current of former government officials that have turned out to be complete bogus.
The story that Trump was wiretapped – which thus far appears to be false was a NYT story.
NYT has produced 3 diffrent authoraitve and deeply sources stories telling us the trigger for the FBI investigation of Trump during the election. One of those is that the Steele Dossier was the basis for the investigation and FISA warrants – but now that the Steele Dossier has been tied to Clinton and the DNC – that is not acceptable so we have two new deeply source stories.
What we know for certain is that atleast 2 of the 3 are “Fake news”.
If the media does nto want to have its credibility challenged – it should do a much better job of verifying its stories.
Trump has said alot of things in Tweets – when he acts as president, then I am interested.
BTW Pres. Obama did actually investigate and threaten numerous jounalists for publishing leaks.
I think the threat of a lawsuit to stop the publication of Fire and Fury was a stupid move on Trump’s part. Nothing draws attention to a book more than threats of law suits.
Wolff should tank Trump, he is richer for the threats.
Regardless, Trump’s attorney’s – not the DOJ threatened the lawsuit.
I think Trump’s pardon of Arpaio was revolting.
But that does not make it a crime.
I also think that Obama’s pardoning of FLNA terrorists was revolting.
In fact there are few presidention pardons that do not seriously bother me.
Regardless, Trump’s pardon of Arpiao was legal and constitutional and as offensive pardons go unremarkable.
The arguments you are making against the Arpaio pardon work exactly the same with EVERY pardon.
Regardless, pardoning someone has nothinjg to do with executing the laws.
It has to do with punishment – something quite different.
If you are going to say Madision said something – please provide a quote or some context.
Here is what Madison actually said
“:There is one security in this case [a misuse of the pardon power by the president] to which gentlemen may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President.”
As the constitution stands – Trump can pardon anyone – including himself.
And the only remedy is impeachment.
There is a theme to your attacks on Trump.
You are offended by what he says. You raise his speach and pretend it is somehow conduct.
Much of the speach that offends you other presidents have actually turned into conduct.
Obama investigated several Jounralists – including getting warrants against them that alleged that their publication of leaks was criminal.
I think that is far worse than Trump’s words.
Ron and Dave,
Fair enough, I did not do my due diligence on the traffic accidents. I should know better than to shoot from the hip when you two guys are around to keep me honest.
And I don’t believe that marijuana is responsible for the deaths that are attributable to tobacco and alcohol. Not even close.
In addition, I am in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana, although I do believe that it should be heavily regulated, to minimize the chances that children, adolescents and pets have easy access to it (yeah, I know, adolescents have had easy access for years, but we should try to get a handle on that nevertheless).
I have a close friend in Denver who is a veterinarian, and she says that the numbers of cases of THC poisoning of pets is astronomical, and mostly results from idiots leaving plates of marijuana baked goods out where dogs and cats can get into them. Do we trust these idiots not to leave the stuff out where children can get into them.
Despite the years of pot use in the US, there have been only limited scientific studies on the long term effects of marijuana. There is pretty clear evidence that it is detrimental to a developing brain, and also that there are links between marijuana use and mental illness. I realize that there are equal or greater dangers to alcohol and tobacco use, but we no longer see alcohol and tobacco marketed to young people as harmless and fun. Quite the opposite, weed is routinely hailed as far less harmful than alcohol.
My original point was that it would be ridiculous to blame everyone who is in favor of legalized marijuana for the negative consequences of the drug. Or to “hold them in contempt” for their position.
Rick, this would be a good topic for a column! We’d eventually get around to arguing about Trump, but it might take 100 or so comments…😉
Priscilla, I am going to provide the basis for Dave to comment abundantly about government interference and how regulations do not provide any protections. I agree with you fully about regulating marijuana just as we have alcohol. I also agree to the tax issue. No one has to buy alcohol or marijuana if they do not want to pay the tax.
However, there is a point of no return. There is a risk/reward point. If the regulations are too strict and the taxes are too high, that provides incentives for the drug cartels to continue to import it illegally into the USA. If the controls make it too difficult for one to buy at shops, then the product will be purchased on the street. Just like the importation of cigarettes into high tax states from lower tax states. Once the difference gets big enough, it is worth bootlegging the things from NC to NY or CN. The other issue is the fact the government is providing a perfect storm for the underworld to get into the pot business by making it illegal for banks to service pot store accounts. These stores are either storing tons of actual cash in vaults in storage facilities or they are using a third party intermediary like a PayPal type company who collects funds from the pot stores and then the pot stores pay their suppliers from that account. After the balances get big enough, I have no idea where the money then ends up. Maybe in Bit Coin, maybe in an off shore account, maybe going to an underworld mafia type that pays a percentage for the cash transferred to them where they can launder the money. And then I suspect the states have problems when people bring stacks of cash in for the tax revenues. Jeff Sessions has no concept of what his directive is going to do.
Much of the tax collected should not go to the general fund of the states, but they should use some of that for educational material to make people aware of the dangers to pets and kids. The rest should be used for programs the states have refused to fund from general funds in the past.
Pets. Problem is many of the people with pets that get into marijuana laced foods are also allowing their pets to get into other things that could be just as dangerous. In these instances, you cant fix stupid. But there could be regulations where the vets report the instance to the local authorities and there is a hefty fine. if they get into it anywhere, the owners are responsible, no excuse. Could make some people practice better control of their pets and their stash.
Yes, further study needs to occur, not by the pot industry, not by the government, not by any organization dead set against it. Some funding from the tax should go to a completely independent research facility to come up with findings from as neutral an organization as possible. I would not trust anything that the pot industry, the government or some right wing christian conservative backed research facility came up with.
Specifically with regard to children – I do not have the answers.
As I general rule we should leave choices regarding children to parents, rather than governmet.
Regardless, There are people – including children who are unable to make their own choices.
We should constrain that group as much as possible, and we should keep government out of managing that group as much as possible, But thye still exist.
9 year olds should not be making their own choices regarding alcohol and drugs.
I am not going to go to much further into that – because I do not have the answers and there do not seem to be any good bright lines.
Jay, you misunderstand the meaning and purpose of the emoluments clause. The fact that Trump goes to his own golf course to play golf , and has to have the Secret Service go with him is not accepting a “present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
And the presidential pardon is a plenary power. It is absolute. Trump could have pardoned Charles Manson. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, easily a much worse guy than Arpaio. If you want the absolute presidential power of pardon to end, you have to change the Constitution.
Finally, the leaking of classified government documents is a felony. James Comey admitted to doing it. I am not aware of any reason why the president cannot sue for libel, other than the fact that it would be almost impossible to win such a suit. Granted it’s not very presidential, but Trump’s not known for his presidential behavior.
0 for 3. 😜
short, accurate, I am envious.
You might want to lose “rationalizatin” from your vocabulary, as you clearly do not know what it means. “enable” as well.
Regardless, I am not afraid of the judgement of history – you should be.
Worse still you do not understand the consequences of removing a legitimately elected president are.
Your attack on Trump – the Trump/Russia collusion argument is a challenge to his legitimacy – to the legitimacy of the election. If you do not succeed in proving that YOU are illegitmate – regardless of the outcome.
There is a reason this is all being called an attempted “soft coup” because that is what it is.
It is an effort to thwart the expressed lawful will of the people lawlessly.
You seem to be incapable of perceiving this will have consequences – whether you fail or succeed.
One of the reasons for the high degree of polarization since the election – is it is apparent that the left is not trustworthy. That you will use “any means necescary” to get what you want.
Here is a simple test for you. Are you prepared to accept Trumps’ removal and replacement with someone exactly like him in every way – except without even minor links to Russia ?
If you are not then it is clear – you do not seek the law. You are trying to misuse the law to seek a political end.
That is also why this investigation is severely tarnished. It is not that some participants in it dislike Trump. It is that the participants in it have experesed the willingness to ignore the law or manipulate the law to get the ends they wish.
The recent Fusion GPS editorial and Sen Grassley’s response should clarify things.
Fusion GPS claimed they provided secret evidence in a secret hearing that proves Trump/Russia collusion. That republicans were deliberately hiding that evidence.
Grassley responded – noting that Fusion testified behind closed doors because they refused to testify openly,. That behind closed doors they invoked the fifth amendment repeatedly, and he extended the offer to testify before the senate openly whenever they wanted.
I furtther noted that Fusion is not a government actor therefore whatever evidence they have they are free to make public as they wish. The government can not make secret what it does not own.
Put more simply it is self evident that Fusion is lying – badly,
What is slowlygoing on in the house and senate is that congressional investigators are moving from – there have been alot of disparate bad actions on the part of former and currentDOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA to alter the outcome of the election, and that is it increasly likely and possibly proveable that those actions were not “disparate” but atleast losely organized.
That they were a conspiracy.
If you had a fraction of what has been uncovered within FBI/DOJ – but from the Trump campaign, Trump would have been impeached and removed.
What is becoming evident is there was a conspiracy to “influence” the outcome of the US election.
But it was not between the Trump Campaign and Russia, but within the Obama administration, and that it continued afterwards in an effort to remove Trump in order to cover up the conspiracy.
Question For New Moderate Commentators:
As long as people in Flint, Michigan are still waiting for their water to be safe enough to drink and citizens in Puerto Rico are without water and electricity, should we stop funding golf trips. Period.???
In a winter where schools have to use GoFund Me to keep classrooms heated, should taxpayers be paying for golf cart survalaine?
I tell you repeatedly that Public schools are a failure.
You provide the evidence and then deny it.
Regardless, still selling the same fallacy.
The answer is still the same – by your logic – so long as there is one starving person anywhere in the world, you may not use deodorant. Given that schools do not have heat – you must give up potato chips and snack food too.
“To each according to their need, from each according to their ability”
Karl Marx
Jay;
you have said repeatedly you are not on the left.
Yet, here you are advocating marxism.
Why should I take seriously your claim that you are not “the left.”
There are people in north africa who are starving – should we cease buying deoderant until they are fed ?
You are offering the same stupid fallacy that Sanders pushes all the time.
It is rooted in myriads of false assumptions.
That there is a finite and scarce amount of wealth, therefore whatever is held by one, is at the expense of others.
That money solves problems – that is self evidently wrong.
The people of Flynnt are responsible for their own problems.
They built their water system. They maintained it (or did not), they made stupid choices regarding it. These and myriads of other bad choices were made by decades of democrats running Fynnt.
Though the worst were the more recent crop of democrats.
Fynnt chose to shift from depending on water from eleswhere to shifting back to an older local supply system that had long ago moved to disuse. When they shifted they found they needed massive amounts of treatment to meet current safety standards, and then they discovered that doing that resulted in water that corroded their ancient supply system leaching lead from the pipes and making the water even less safe than untreated. Nor can they switch back as the system they previously used is now fully utilized for others.
When you step in an save people from the mistakes they have made, you create “moral hazard”,
you prevent them and others from learning. You assure they and others will make further and larger mistakes in the future.
Your very efforts to do what you think is good cause greater harm than you are fixing.
Question: as Schlump will be covered for the rest of his life under taxpayer paid Health Insurancem will we have to pay for face lifts, penis replacements, or medicines for depression?
If Schlump divorces, are futurbwives protected by taxpayers?
If he wants a sex change operation who foots the bill?
Will he be referred to as ex Oresident Mrs Schlump?
Strictly logically – as there is no president Schlump the tax payers are not on the hook for him for anything.
With respect to actual former presidents, From Carter through Obama – our liability to them is determined by laws that congress passed – if you do not like those change them.
You seem to think that we should have special laws for specific people.
That Trump should not be entitled to the same benefits as Obama as an example.
That is a violation of the constitution, the rule of law, and Kant’s categorical imperative.
In otherwords it is intellectual and moral garbage.
Ignoring that I have not checked whether your “facts” are correct – and often they are not.
I have zero problem with ending laws that subsidize former presidents in anyway.
The nation owes them pay for the time they served. Nothing more.
When you leave office at the end of your last time, you are a private citizen and responsible for yourself.
I need four or five more comments to keep even with Dave’s posting frequency. Bare with me.
Did Bannon was cram his head up his own ass,an find himself confused and alone in a dark corner of his own making.?
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/455198/steve-bannon-fallacy-trump-his-adviser-fall-out
Goldberg’s critique of Bannon sounds accurate – though a bit long.
I was an remain concerned regarding his departure from the WH that the advice Trump is getting is becoming too insular, one sided and self re-enforcing.
If Bannon was a major source of leaks – and that appears true, then he had to go.
But Trump needs a strong voice arguing for the opposite of whatever “the Generals” want – and Bannon was that voice and now it is gone.
I think Bannon was wrong far more than he was right.
But Bannon was right about Afghanstan and without him Trump was sheparded by “the Generals” into the wrong choice. It will not likely be the only or the worst mistake of the Trump administration, but it still is a loss.
Trump more so than any president in my memory had a cabinet and advisors of capable strong willed people who were not even close to lockstep in agreement.
That is what we want.
Way way too much is made of concensus, of compromise, of common ground.
Anyone who thinks that way should re-read John Stuart Mill “on liberty” twice.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
John Stuart Mill
Note: regarding my sloppy spelling/ editing:
WordPress has shrunk down my Leave A Reply screen to a size I can barely see the letters.
To see words clearly I have to enlarge the screen, but that adds time to the process.
Also the app isn’t posting half of my comments… I have to reload and repost to have them show up.
Rick needs to start a new thread
Jay: Remember that WordPress no longer recognizes me as the blog’s administrator, so I can’t add or edit content. It’s like a Catch-22 nightmare trying to straighten this out. They have my old e-mail address on file, and that’s where they send my log-in instructions. But I can’t access my old e-mail address, because — well, it’s my OLD e-mail address. Naturally, they gave me no way to update my e-mail address on this account. They have no customer service number, and their online help person vanished after five minutes. I’ll try again this week, so stay tuned.
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/949739312437870592
Ken White (popehat) is an absolutely fantastic advocate for free speach.
Ken’s remarks that you cite regarding american exceptionalism and free speech are near word for word something I posted off the cuff to Moogie.
But I follwed you like and neither the popehat tweet, nor the headline linked to are consistent with the video remarks Trump actually makes.
I did not hear him calling for new laws, only complaining that US libel laws are very weak.
He is right – US libel laws are weak. I am happy with it that way.
I would seriously consider making them weaker.
If anyone could say anything about anyone without legal consequence – then we would know for sure that we could not trust something just because it was said.
I am sure Trump would prefer stronger libel laws. But like myriads of similar things he says – he is not acting to do anything about that.
I am MILDLY bothered by Trumps constant assertions that the law should be different.
But until he takes steps to actually DO something about it, my annoyance is MILD not foaming at the mouth.
When the left threatens our liberty – they are far more likely to follow through.
Free speech is at the very core of our free society, and, while I am sorry that Trump has to put up with the kind of dishonest and unfair attacks that he endures, he chose to put himself in this position.
I think that Trump is justifiably angry, and I think that his supporters are angry on his behalf, because supposed journalists spend almost 100% of their time attacking him personally, attacking his family, and reporting things that are demonstrably untrue. On the other hand, while he didn’t give up his own right to free speech, I think that he does himself a disservice when he continues to give this stupid book more attention than it deserves.
Bannon stabbed him in the back, allowed a dishonest hack into the White House during a time when a new, inexperienced administration was under attack from many sides, and failed to protect the man who had given him access to incredible power and influence. Nevertheless, treachery is part of politics, and Trump had better learn that lesson, or this will happen repeatedly.
tRUMP picked all these screwups to work for him. When a screwup is in charge of choosing other screwups, guess the outcome? You’re seeing it daily.
He chose Bannon and relied on him for advice throughout the campaign and first year in office.
He chose Flynn.
He chose Manafort.
He chose his own son-in-law and daughter for high level advice and input and authority.
He picked the dipshit AG.
He OKed the first Dumbell Press Secretary, and airhead Kelly as his main spokesperson.
He’s nominated a series of under or fully unqualified judges and other nitwits to lead major US agencies.
And if the book was all lies, why did he dump on Bannon so fast? Why slur him so quickly if the author invented everything? I know the answer, and you probably could figure it out too if you weren’t so tangled up in Orange.
I do not think Flynn is a screwup.
Flynn has proven right on Iran.
Can you name any campaign director that is appealing ?
Thus far I have no reason to question the advice of his son-in-law or daughter.
Sessions was an extremely poor choice for AG – but he is not a dipshit. He should have been placed elsewhere.
You have a thing about Women ? Conway and Sanders are doing fine. You seem to confuse ideological disagreement for lack of talent.
The majority of his judicial nominees are between very good and stellar.
One mistake elevating an ALJ does not poison the crop.
The current left leaning bench is abysmally bad.
When many decisions are overruled 9-0 by scotus – there is a serious problem in the lower courts.
Even the left leaning supreme court justices seem to get you just can not make things up.
I can not think of a current cabinet member I am not happy with.
I do not care if the book was lies or not. ‘
I do not care if the whitehouse is contentious – I think it should be. I think the president should here a wide variety of ideas argued passionately.
There are alot of things Trump says that I “disapprove” of.
But disapproval can range from ho-hum annoynace to frothing demands for impeachment.
Trump falls closer to the former than latter.
What he actually does risks falling towards that latter.
With respect to actually stifling the press or speach he is all hat no cattle.
All talk no action. He does not make the slightest effort to try.
Therefore I do not take seriously his remarks that “threaten” censorship.
Trump has not investigated journalists, gotten warrants against them, or tried to force them to reveal sources.
Obama repeatedly did all of those.
All of Trumps threatening speach is not a fraction as concerning as Obama’s actions.
I do not mostly care about the spitball fight between Trump and the press.
They deserve each other. I wish the comupance the press was getting was not from the president, regardless it is richly deserved.
The credibility of the media flagships is zilch today.
Overall I think that is a good development. We need to learn critical thinking. We need to get information from multiple sources and to learn to weigh it.
We need to listen to both those sources that we agree with and those we do not.
I really do not care much about Bannon. I think Trump should have shutup about Bannon – by attacking he made it clear he beleived the Bannon quote.
The better argument would be Wolff has a reputation for making things up and hyperbolizing.
I do wish Trump’s whitehouse was more ideologically diverse.
The generals have taken over and all other viewpoints are being driven out.
While I think “the generals” are one of the more sane perspectives.
A single perspective is bad.
If Bannon was leaking – throwing him out was right.
I disagree with Bannon on many issues. But I want a voice like his present.
One of Trump’s skills is bringing in talent with diverse views and using that dieversity to find the best answer,.
Some insider stories on Bannon from Kudlow and Moore.
Put simply Bannons “economic populism” is derivative leftist bunkum.
Bannon wants higher taxes, higher tarrif’s, is anti-free trade. He does nto understand economics – much as the left does nto understand economics.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/01/06/bannon_goes_belly-up_and_the_stock_market_soars_135941.html
New Quiz Show: Guess My Name
I’m a Genius who Inherited a vast fortune from my father and did worse with it than if I had invested the money in a SP500 index fund through bungled debt, gross incompetence, grifting shareholders – to see my stock plunge from $35 to $.17 a share. I am a SANE (sometimes) Management disaster, a cad, an oaf, a Kremlin stooge and bully, a constant liar, a promiscuous adulterer, a necrophiliac (whoops, I wasn’t supposed to let those Russian photos out of the coffin), a short tempered loud mouthed holder of high public office with the self control of an overweight binge eater.
If you haven’t got it yet put your pointed cone hats on your pointed cone heads.
Apropos
Trump received shares of a family business worth about 45M in the early 70’s.
He more than doubled that such that when he inherited his father’s shares later, he gained another 100M in inherited wealth – that is 150M in total inherited wealth – though 50 of it was produced under his management.
In 1960 the SP500 was 500 the SP closed today at 2700.
Trump is worth 3.1B according to Forbes.
Sorry Jay but Trump has beat the SP500 by an order of magnitude.
We are talking someone who has done well in Realestate and construction over the long term.
We are talking someone what has had a successful long term reality TV carreer,
and we are talking someone who won the presidency on his first political effort.
Get a clue – you can not due that without being far more capable than you credit him.
The odds against are astronomical.
There are a few people with similar track records – but very few.
There are alot of things I do not like about DT – many the same as you.
But I do not piss on other peoples success.
http://www.gocomics.com/clayjones/2018/01/05
Another example of the continuing slow erosion of American power and influence in international affairs since the inauguration of #PresidentPooPoo
Do you support the protestors in Iran seeking Freedom ?
If you do – then you are with Trump and Halley and against Russia and the UN and the obama administration that was silent when something similar happened in 2009.
Trump did not concoct the idiotic deal with Iran that the Europeans are clinging to.
Obama did. Is that something that looking at things right now, he deserves credit or blame for ?
Obama unified the UN to do something stupid – that the wise among us now regret and that may result in freedom seeking Iranian people dying over.
Trump is supporting those voices seeking liberty in Iran. If he is alienating Europe or Russia in doing so – so be it. Sometimes doing the right thing is lonely.
BLM arrose under Obama NOT Trump.
Trump has argued that the UN is wasteful and useless, and today they proved it.
Sorry Jay, I am not in favor of diplomacy at the expense of other peoples lives and rights.
I expect that things in Iran are going to end badly.
But the UN, the NYT and the left should be ASHAMED for turning their backs on the Iranian people
Trump and Halley should be proud for standing up for liberty.
Where are you ?
Never mind – we can tell from the article you linked.
You would oppose the 2nd coming of Christ – if Trump supported it.
35 psychiatrists proved correct
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html
A better title would be psychiatrists proven ethically challenged idiiots.
“Dr Gartner was invited as an activist and was not on the actual panel, nor a spokesperson for the event. The organiser emphasises that the event was independently organised and did not represent the views of Yale University or Yale School of Medicine.”
The few speakers DO NOT represent the event or the body as a whole,
and the psychiartic community re-itterated adherence tot he ethic rules that the speakers were violating.
“35 psychiatrists proved correct”
Does truth or accuracy matter to you ?
Proved (sic) has a meaning. as does correct. as does 35.
We have a handful of psychiatrists – one primary one who is no longer licensed – and therefore can not be held accountable for violations of the rules of ethics, who have mad a shotgun diagnosis from affar.
The only thing we “know” as a fact is that they made a diagnosis, and approximately what that is.
There is no “proved” or “correct” there is not even 35.
Otherwise interesting is that the same media pundits who properly refused to specultate when Clinton was showing signs of health issues during the campaign – dropping questions about her health like hot potatoes, these same people now think such speculation is not only reasonable – but required.
This is called hypocracy. While I am diractly attacking those talking heads – you share that hypocracy.
I would also note that the press seems to alternate between this shotgun diagnosis out of the DSM and one of dementia – two radically different mental health issues.
We are pretty much cluseless about the causes and mechanisms of most psychiatric disorders, while dimensia is an as of yet untrealable problem of biological origens.
Regardless, make up your mind.
As several more capable people have noted Trump has a very long history in public.
His behavior is unchanged accross decades.
You can bitch that he promissed to be more presidential if you wish.
But you can not pretend that President Trump is somehow different from candidate Trump.
In Nov. 2016 the voters deemed him competent to be president. Nothing has changed.
Trump 2017 and 2018 is no different from Trump 2016 or before.
Personally I find all this garbage from the left a stupid distraction.
You claim that the congressional investigations into the DOJ/FBI are a distraction from Mueller.
That is bunk, Mueller’s investigation is supposed to be quiet. If it is on the news daily – someone is leaking or someone is lying.
Thus far Mueller has provided no evidence he has anything.
Further the congressional investigations are casting very very serious doubt on the representations that there EVER was any evidence. Brenenan and Clapper promised – but they never delivered. The left promised but it never delivered.
The nonsensical attacks on Trumps competence are the left’s distractions from the fact that they went deep into the well for Trump/Russia collusion – and came up dry.
You have nothing left.
Adam Schiff promised that he had seen “more than circumstantial evidence of Trump/Russia collusion” 10 months ago. Where is the beef ?
I know you think I am a Trump supporter – though I am not.
But I am growing to loath everyone associated with this garbage.
I had a fair amount of respect when Obama left office. While I did not think he was a good president, I though he was a good person. This has left that reputation in tatters.
What was going on in NSA/CIA/DOJ/FBI was corrupt and as I have said before WORSE THAN WATERGATE – it occurred inside the administration. These were not politically hired burglars.
Moderates complain about polarization – look at 2016 and 2017.
What have we discussed ? The media, the left, many posters here rain a constant barage of Trump is evil, demented, colluding with russians banalities on us.
Discussion of Trump’s personal quirks is worthy of about 2 min of our time.
Some of us have discussed issue – but not mostly those on the left.
I am not sure that there is much we can or should do about it besides providing moral support, but what is happening in Iran matters. People are risking their lives to demand their freedom.
That is far more consequential than tabloid gossip from “Fire & Furry”.
And Idiots on the left actually try to turn Iran into an anti-trump screed because when Trump asks the UN to speak out Europeans fixate on Black Lives Matter and Russia.
Somehow the predictable failure of the UN – is Trump’s fault. Why is it our fault that other countries are morally bankrupt ?
North Korea scares the crap out of all of us. Trump did not get us here. Ignoring them and pretending there is no problem is not going to make us any safer. I have heard no one with a good answer on North Korea – yet left wing rants about Trump’s twitter Jabs at Kim un those are important ? If you have an answer regarding dealing with North Korea – please lets discuss it.
In the meantime Trump is trying. He might get us into a nuclear war – and that definitely scares me. Or we might end up in one no matter what – and that scares me too.
Immigration is a important issue – but we do not talk about immigration. We do not talk about what Trump is trying to to. We talk about whether Trump is allowed to do anything. Not whether the president is allowed to, but specifically whether Trump is allowed to – because there are special rules for Trump.
Rather than making personal attacks the gist of which is because Trump is purportedly a hateful hating hater, he can not be allowed to decide anything about immigration – how about actually discussing immigration ?
The economy is an important issue – one that the left and the media are completely ignoring.
Things are happening – the country is changing the world is changing. And the left and the media are only interested in discussing today’s Trump tabloid garbage.
You want to diagnose Trump online – great, he is a narcissist – like pretty much all politicians. He may have it worse than most. He is prone to overly broad generalizations and self agrandizement.
SO WHAT ?
We have a coven of left wing nut shrinks who vascilate between Trump is a narcisist paranoid schizophrenic and psychopath and he is suffering from demintia.
Make up your mind atleast.
Regardless most of these shrinks – and those citing them need to address THEIR paranoia.
Please tell me how Trump has BEHAVED more badly than Obama.
I would like better – alot better. But we could – and have had alot worse.
If Trump is a deranged demented Paranoid – then maybe that is what we need.
If this is what he thinks of Schlump’s spokesperson, what do you think he thinks of DingDongDonald?
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/950112411528282112
Those of you who claim to respect Popehat don’t you get it yet?
Fox, Schlump, and his enablers – like you, are on the wrong side of history.
This administration is damaging all of us. His apologists – you – undermine basics core beliefs we’ve shared throughout our history..
This guy is a fucking disaster for the nation.
You should be SCREAMING tomremove him.
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/950166271806418944
Jay
What nonsense!
Are you required to follow lockstep whatever anyone who you respect claims ?
Frankly I was very disappointed by Ken White’s remark’s regarding Sarah Sander’s.
They were out of line and over the top.
With respect to YOUR claims.
Please provide evidence of them.
HOW is this administration damaging to all of us ?
How is “this guy” a fucking disaster for the nation ?
Evidence is things that have been DONE not things that you do not like that have been said.
What I have seen over the past year is evidence that the left has visciously attacked Trump with claims that have proven false and that as we learn more- most of those making them KNEW were false.
What I have seen is an administration that is less than perfect, but has still undone alot of damage of the prior two.
Some people I respect are at sometimes critical – I am sometimes critical.
But more interesting others I respect have gone from deeply hostile to cautiously supportive.
You say we are on the wrong side of history – what history?
Again what has been DONE that I should be afraid of being associated with ?
Frankly YOU should be affraid of the judgement of history.
It is increasingly evident that there never was any consequential contact between the Trump campaign and Russia – that the Obama administration KNEW that. That claims that there was were lies and that those uttering them KNEW that. That large portions of the upper levels of the Obama administration either formally or informally conspired to destroy the political opposition using their positions in government to do so.
We have just completed what is likely the economically best year since 2008.
We will likely have had the first 4 quarters of 3% or greater economic growth since 2008.
That will not continue forever but it is near certain to continue through 2018 and it is likely to continue through 2020.
Productivity is starting to rise again, and with it wages. People who have not been part of the workforce for nearly a decade are going back to work.
Those are all BIG deals.
We are all already 1% better off than we would have been otherwise.
Might not sound like much – except when you consider that is the difference between the 80’s and 90’s and the 21st century.
YOU appear to be on the wrong side of history.
Anyone with a whitt of sense would realize that the weak economy of Bush and Obama made us all less well off. Made the wealthy less wealth, but left the middle class and the least well off among us with less than they would have had otherwise.
1% more growth from 2000 through to 2016 would have done more for the least of us than every feel good measure the left can think of.
Why should I be demanding to have Trump removed ?
Because he hurts your feelings ?
What has he DONE ?
I can list a GROWING number of bad things that were DONE during the Obama administration.
There are actual issue that I disagree with the Trump administration.
But none of those are addressed by you or most of the media.
I care that Sessions/Trump are back to fostering the militarization of police.
The fact that I do not beleive that our police have a serious racism problem does not mean that I do not beleive that they have a serious violence problem.
Trump/Sessions are bringing back increased asset forfeiture. This is an incredibly vile means of abusing mostly the poor.
Trump/Sessions are ending the detente between the states and the federal government over drug policy. The war on drugs has been an abject failure. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that. It is costly, unwinnable, and destructive of our rights. Nearly half of republicans/conservatives support legalization.
We should be out of afghanistan – or atleast working towards leaving.
Dave “The fact that I do not beleive that our police have a serious racism problem does not mean that I do not beleive that they have a serious violence problem.”
Please pay attention to the portion between 6:25 and 7:00 where this individual is talking about the tactics the white supremacist are using these days. It may change your thinking about police somewhat and may shed light on why some thing happen we wonder about.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/an-american-terrorist/
I ususally don’t watch 60 minutes, but for some reason I saw this when it aired and thought it was one of the better segments they have done.
The video you link claims that white supremecists are responsible for more deaths since 9/11 than Terrorists.
After that it is hard to take seriously. That fallacious assertion has been addressed before – to get to numbers BARELY higher than terrorists – you have to count every pro-life killing, every mentally disturbed mass killer – Loughner, Lanza, …. Most domestic violence deaths – I mean of course if a While male with tattoos kills his girlfriend – he must be a neo-nazi and race must drive it.
Much of this narrative is driven by SPLC and affiliated groups who have made a fortune amplifying the threat of purportedly right wing groups.
With respect to the segment you refered to – I am sure it is true.
It is also irrelevant. The number of police in the US is enormous – approximately 1m people are in law enforcement in the US.
The SPLC and other like to count “hate groups” – but given that they think that any group that beleives in a nuclear family with a husband and wife is a hate group – their numbers are dubious.
That also classify as white supremist any group that opposes immigration – particularly of hispanics or muslims.
Regardless the last peak of actual white supremists was sometime back near Wilson as president and numbers have been declining ever since.
Absolutely facing dwindling numbers and near extincion neo-nazi’s and KKK put on suits and sought to make themselves look less despicable – something that we should encourage, as guys like Richard Spencer might be pretty bad by todays standards – but they are whimps compared to the white supremists of decades ago.
Regardless, I am more interested in real statistics than annecdotes about the fringes.
Heather MacDonald has done pretty much the seminal research on this topic.
She has end to end data on most everything related to police better than most anyone else – though she is broadly supported by other experts in the field.
Her results are as robust as the data we have.
From end to end in our criminal justice system, every other aspect of the process tracks complaints. If the police get 1000 complaints of crime from a minority community and 200 from a white one – the number of stops, arrests, brutality complaints, convictions, ….. everything track the complaints. If complaints identify the race of the purpetrator – that ties with the same chains.
The only area of racial dispartiy we see is drug sentences – and that is primarily because the sentences for Crack and drugs that are epidemic in the black community are higher – at the demand of minority lawmakers. That was a mistake – as is the war on drugs, but it is not a mistake of the justice system it is one of the legislative system.
I am not trying to say there is no racism in law enforcement. What I am saying is there is no UNUSUAL racism in law enforcement, and that racism in law enforcement is sufficiently small that it does nto actually show up in well done statistical analysis.
There are alot of serious problems in law enforcement. The execution of the white drunk salesman in Las Vegas because he had a paintball gun in his hotel room is horrible and inexcusable. I have no doubt the cop involved would have just as quickly killed a black man.
Fundimentally our policing suffers from exactly the same problems that our government as a whole suffers from – except that these guys have guns.
Too much power, not enough accountability. As Madision noted in Federalist 51 – men are not angels – and we are not governed by angels.
Those given power must be subject to REAL oversight – whether the police, or the president.
But back to your video – sort of. BLM and Anitifa each are far larger than all members of white supremecists groups in the US combined. They are also far more violent and far more dangerous.
I do not want to re-open the charlottesville debate. Trump’s remarks that there were good people on both sides – is a poor choice of words. There were not alot of “good people” at charlottessville on either side. But MOST of the people there were not looking to kill people.
At charlottesvile there were a bit over 500 people protesting the removeal of the monument.
There were a bit less than 5000 counter protestors.
A week later in boston, The free speach groups – non of which had anything to do with the alt-right, might have managed to get 50 people – including some blacks and an indian.
There were 40,000 counter protestors.
There is no serious large white supremist movement in this country today.
That does not mean that white supremists do not exist, but they are few, pretty much disorganized and pretty docile.
At Charlottesville there were something like 50 members of the New York Millitia.
They came in camafloage and they came armed with AR-15’s. Because the police failed to do their job – the New York Millitia did it for them, and they were very successful at keeping the groups separated – and they never fired a shot – but they were insufficient in number to be everywhere.
I would also note that the militia movement is quite different from the white supremist movements.
Militia members are very conservative, and pro-gun and maybe even more racist than the norm – but that is not their identifying characteristic. Most of the actual racist white supremecist groups have real Nazi connections and are ANTI-Liberty and pro-government. The militias tend to be just short of anarchists.
I am sure there is some interviews of Randy Weaver from Ruby Ridge available on the web.
He is unlikely to be someone you agree with, but he does not match the carciture the press is going to give you or these groups.
Most of these guys are appocolypitc types – they beleive the end of the world is near, and their answer is to retreat into the wilderness well armed and prepared to defend themselves.
They are survivalists – not white supremicists.
Guys, I realize that this is not about police and racism, but I thought I’d post in this thread, because it deals with misbehavior on the part of law enforcement, in this case federal law enforcement, ie. the FBI:
“A federal judge Monday threw out criminal charges against Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a co-defendant in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff, citing “flagrant misconduct” by prosecutors and the FBI in not disclosing evidence to the defense before and during trial.”
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/01/cliven_bundy_standoff_case_thr.html
The exculpatory evidence that the FBI withheld was, in large part based on secret surveillance of the Bundy’s. The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, menaing that the Bundy’s cannot be tried again. The judge stated:
“The government’s conduct in this case was indeed outrageous,” U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro ruled. “There has been flagrant misconduct, substantial prejudice and no lesser remedy is sufficient.”
The FBI under the Obama administration appears to have been truly partisan, and weaponized against opponents of the regime. Cliven Bundy has spent almost all of this time (2 years) in jail.
I wonder if the media will cover this the way they covered the original standoff? (That is sarcasm)
The Bundy’s are mormon extremist wack jobs.
But that does not actually make them criminals or wrong in their conflicts with government.
I strongly suspect there is even more to all of this than is being reported.
The Federal Government has been cracking down HARD on these ranchers.
These are people who own land, but also lease land from the government.
Their families have been leasing this land since the late 1800’s.
At the time (and actually even today) the federal government is CONSTITUTIONALLY obligated not to hold this land, but to sell it to private individuals.
In certain parts of the west we find large government ownership of land because when the teritory formed into a state the federal government required the states to create a constitution that permitted massive federal ownership of land. Outside of the west as a state was formed the federal government had to sell most of the land it held.
Anyway this land is crappy land. It is not good for pretty much anything but grazing.
And these people have been grazing this land for over a century.
70 years ago – these families were the most politically powerful in their state and the Fed’s would not have messed with them. Today most of these states have enough prosperity from other sources that ranchers do not wear the big political hats, and the Feds can more easily run roughshod over them.
Specifically with respect to the Bundy’s the Fed’s have struck deals with them and reneged repeatedly.
Put most simply the Fed’s out in the west behave incredibly lawlessly.
To a large extent the Fed’s are not people who lived in these states. they are outsiders who have moved in with federal jobs and are sure they know how to take care of these lands better than the people who have been doing so for over a century.
Ultimately the Bundy;s and their neighbors and friends are losing. The feds are deliberately and quite openly and intentionally trying to bankrupt them. They are also trying to make them into criminals if they will not kowtow.
I doubt that I would agree with the Buny’s on pretty much anything – except that in their specific instance the federal government is the problem.
The vast majority of federal holdings in most of these states should either be sold to private owners or transfered to the states. –
I would note that it is usually fanatics who are prepared to stand up to tyrants. Most of us can not afford to spend two years in jail to challenge a lawless federal government. Evil people with the ear of government constantly use the law as a means of grinding down those that get in their way.
Even when the law and the facts are on your side – few of us have the ability to held out for what may be years to get our day in court.
Worse still the conflict grinds us down. If you are in a legal struggle, you are not focused on all the other important aspects of your life. If Cliven was in jail – then he was not ranching. His family was spending money on lawyers – not the ranch. A poerful opponent – and none are more powerful than the federal government can grind you do nothing long before you get your day in court.
Again I would refer to the youtube video about Howard Root’s medical device company.
The fed’s sought to destroy him. They wanted millions in fines, and they wanted the top people in his company in jail. Root had a supportive board and spent 25M and 5 years fighting.
Not only did he win, but the jury essentially said the government was evil. But there was no consequences, no recourse, Root’s company could not even get its legal fees back.
The ONLY silver lining was that because they survived the fight with the federal government they were “protected” from further federal interference and that was reflected int he value of the company when they went public at the end.
I would also caution against making this an “Obama” thing – though I think with respect to the Bundy’s it is.
But the DOJ and government bureacrats as oppressors is bipratisan.
You should be seeing that from the current Trump DOJ/FBI garbage.
Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein were republicans.
But before they are republican they are members of the state. Republican or democrat they are the permanent aristocracy. They look down on the rest of us, and they look down on whoever we elect. The fight with Trump is somewhat existential. He campaigned on the promise to destroy them – they took him seriously and they should have.
This is also something one should remember regarding the police – they are very rarely inextricably connected to either party. But they make it crystal clear to BOTH parties that they are to be left alone or the consequences will be dire.
Priscilla, the Bundy issue just goes along with my narrative about trust in government. Probably most here think I am wacko when I say I do not trust government, but this is just another example of our rights being taken away. How much money has this family had to pay to finally get to this resulting decision.
But there will still be those that say we can make laws on certain issues and it will not impact rights. And I will continue to say that is bunk, especially with anything specifically granted in the constitution.
Only when people distrust government does democracy exist. Government in itself is tyrannical unless it is controlled by the people and when the people lose sight of that need, rights are slowly lost.
Good article by David French on Bundy.
While Cliven Bundy does nto deserve our sympathy.
The behavior of the government was egregious.
I would note this with respect to the issues we are dealing with regarding Trump.
Bundy faced the Same FBI as Trump does, with the addition of BLM agents.
It is wrong to assume that just because government is going after someone, even someone who probably is a criminal, that government is not itself behaving criminally.
What was occuring inside the NSA/CIA/DOJ/FBI regarding Trump is deeply disturbing to me.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455263/cliven-bundy-case-dismissed-judge-gloria-navarro-cites-flagrant-federal-misconduct-bureau-land-management
“Only when people distrust government does democracy exist. ”
I completely agree, Ron ( And, I seriously doubt that anyone around here thinks you’re a wacko). As Reagan said, “As government expands, liberty contracts.”
As someone that many here do think is wacko – Ron is not Wako.
The Reagan quote is great, it is also a tautology.
Government is by definition the surrender of some liberty for the protection of other liberty.
More government always means less liberty.
Sometimes is does secure some liberty.
43 USC §1733(a), 43 CFR §§4140.1(b)(1)(i), 4170.2–2 make it a federal crime to let your livestock graze on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management without a permit or paying grazing fees.
Jeffrey Tucker – someone else whose views I respect. Someone who is far more extremely libertarian than I, reviews “Fire & Fury” favorably – and concludes that not only does is mostly accurately portray Trump – but that it mostly portray’s him well. That Trump should like the book, and that ignoring the out of context probably made up quotes, it is good for Trump.
https://www.aier.org/blog/top-things-i-learned-fire-and-fury#.WlLNDf2E7pk.twitter
Interesting graphic on Guns
A test of whether something is a right.
An issue I am at odds with Trump/Sessions
Why democrats have no credibility
Freidman brilliant as always
Brothers
Wing nuts
Another psychological theory bites the dust.
Then author takes a much dimmer view of psychology than I – however his complaints are valid – and reflect problems going well beyond psychology The frequecy of the issues described are greater in soft sciences like psychology and climate, they exist even in hard sciences. Physics has been disrupted by the rejection of theories of crystalography that are 5 decades old – the refutation is also 5 decades old, but it has taken that long for the results of respected physicists to be questioned.
Whenever scientists start talking about concensus that should raise giant red flags – science is not concensus based – it is inherently skeptical. It requires proof with a high degree of statistical certainty.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/01/08/the_six_stages_of_a_failed_psychological_theory.html
In a related story one of the lead editors of the DSM – the disagnostic criteria for ascertaining specific mental disorders has called the recent assessment of Trump by a non practicing psychiatrist essentially hockum unsupported by the diagnostic criteria. Suggesting that Trump show strong signs of Narcisism – which is extremely common in politicians. Further Narcism is a personality disorder – it does not impare ones judgement of functioning.
It is a problem for those arround you, not for yourself.
Which suits Trump pretty well.
Reason on Trump’s mental state.
http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/08/is-trump-a-very-stable-genius-or-a-dange
Narcissism:
Like his historical brother said: Being such a great writer and poet:
‘I wish I was illiterate”. -Nero
“The burden of genius obviously being too much for him to bear.”
Why we were better off as cave men
Rand Paul covers everything from this Shrink nonsense, to the Wolf book to unmasking.
and filibustering 702 re-authorization.
“Libertarians – we are not the crazy ones”
dhii: Must you beat a dead horse over and over again? Even a dead horse realizes that you like libertarian cartoons and graphics. We are not dead and when added to your annoyingly long and serial comments, exceedingly annoying. Perhaps you could use fewer graphics, after all they are not your own words,
This is a community space, not your personal space to fully .cover the walls as you wish.
I know you have graciously said we can ignore your stuff, but the volume of it is too hard to tune out and overwhelms all other comments.
Have you no common sense or manners?
TNM is a community space – not a personal space,
It is an unlimited virtual community space.
You do not like what I post – got that. I do not like Jay posting tweets from just about every neo-con that has ever lived saying over and over “Trump! Argh!”.
There is no difference.
Regardless, you do not seem to understand how community – free association works.
If you wish to make the rules – start your own community.
More to the point – I post things that I think are of interest, and that make the points that I would have made in some 10,000 word post.
Sometimes a cartoon or quote might get you and others to think more than 10,000 words of mine.
So laugh, or don’t or ignore it.
I do not think there is a single item I have posted that is not on a topic that SOMEONE ELSE has raised.
Further this issue goes beyond this blog. Generally – you have the right to listen to whatever you choose. You have the right to exclude whatever speach and viewpoints you wish from your own space. You do not have any right to exclude speach or viewpoints from either the public space or the space of others.
The fact that you think that you do – is the root of the worst problems we have in this country today.
dhlii: You have the right to shut the ____ up, but not the character to do it. I don’t care if it’s Lib. (which you hide behind), Dem, Rep, or your views on ANY subject, they are overkill BS.
****You will now proceed to waste more time defending your right to pollute this blog- Guaranteed.
I do not need to defend my right to do anything.
Addressing your remarks is more fun.
Bad character is making arguments you know or should know are false.
What even does “hide behind” libertarain mean ? I am quite open about it. I am also consistent about it.
I have noted that TNM tilts LEFT, and that LEFT wingnuts are overall much less tolerant – atleast today.
That is reflected by the responses here.
On a number of issues I am to the LEFT of Ron or Priscilla.
Yet, we manage to have respectful civil debates of our differences.
The bile, vitriole, ad hominem only comes out when I am debating someone arguing a progressive (LEFT) view. Reasons for that might include – that progressivism is a religion rooted in faith not facts and therefore can not be argued. Progressives live in a bubble and are unused to being able to argue their own principles and as a result not only can not argue them but are not even familiar with them. Progressivism is inherently intolerant.
I do not belieive you are angry because I post so much.
You are angry because so much of it contradicts your values and you have no answer.
In fact I just read a study about specifically that.
One of the problems that we have – one of the factors driving confirmation bias and driving the rejection of challengine perspectives is that particularly with people whose thinking is driven by emotion rather than reason exposure to information that contradicts their own triggers those parts of the brain most strongly associated with negative emotions – fight or flight. Rather than the rational parts of the brain. This is likely why libertarians are more open, and more able to both consider and intellectually examine differnt views. Part of what distinguishes libertarians from others is that we emphasize reason about other moral foundations. Those on the left emphasize emotion.
I have refered to Haidy’s http://www.yourmorals.org/index.php – you can go take his tests and score yourself on the relative strength you give to each of the moral foundations.
While I think that people can change who they are, I strongly suspect that our ideological starting point is driven by the relative strength of each of our moral foundations, Part of that is nature and part nurture. While it may be changeable, you are swimming upstream to do so.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/08/media/oprah-golden-globes/index.html
Our next president. She will most likely destroy any other democrat who runs since the she will invigorate the minorities to vote at, what I consider, a much greater turnout than even Obama. And in a general election, Trump will finally meet his match for a down and dirty. She will turn out the female vote since she is revered by women where there was many women who had a huge distrust for Clinton.
And Dave, I do not think it will make one iota difference what the economy is doing. When she begins ” and you get free college and you get free college and you get free college”, people are going to vote for her. Not many people vote based on lolicy and what politicians pledge, they vote for who they like more. If they voted for positions and qualifications, Obama, Clinton and Trump would never have been considered to begin witb.
I think Oprah would solve the North Korean problem by giving Kim Jong Un a great big hug!
I would not presume to know how Oprah would campaign or how she would govern.
Like Trump she has been very successful in several different areas – she is certainly very intelligent.
You all forget that whenever she “gives something away” – she is giving something of HERS away. She has done the math and knows she is getting more benefit than the gift is costing her.
This is no different from costco or other stores offering “free samples” in the store.
It works – and they know it. It brings more people to the store, it sells more goods, it get people to try things.
The point being Oprah knows what she is doing. Something most on the left do not.
I strongly suspect she will NOT run, because I do not think being president fits who she is.
But I am guessing, and I could easily be wrong.
I would agree that Oprah would be a formidable candidate.
But candidates always look more formidable than they are BEFORE they enter the race.
Kid Rock was doing very well in polls – until he got serious.
Clinton was supposed to be the heir apparent in 2008, and again in 2016.
I would not presume Oprah wants to run. Though she might.
I would also suggest we know only one Oprah. We do not know Oprah the politician.
A great deal of her success is rooted on being able to stay disconnected from divisive political issues.
Her “brand” requires her to be fairly apolitical. Trump’s did not. Her own business may not survive a political campaign.
I am not trying to “attack” Oprah. I might find her running interesting. I would certainly like to hear what she has to say – once she actually has to talk about the issues involving government – something she has mostly studiously avoided.
I might well find her a very appealing candidate.
But if I were betting – she is not getting into politics.
I do not recall Oprah ever having to deal with a serious conflict or personal attack.
Politics can get very dirty
Even if she won – which I would guess is likely, she would come out less respected that she started.
I am not trying to attack Oprah, Based on what I know she might appeal to me as a candidate. I am just pointing out that Politics is blood sport.
“I think it’s so irritating that once I die, 55 percent of my money goes to the United States government…You know why it’s so irritating? Because you already paid nearly 50 percent when the money was earned.”
Oprah 2007
Dave voters could care less what the candidates have said or what they have done if they are of the political persuasion of that candidate. Just look at the past election! 30 years ago Trump would have never made it past the first few primaries and would have been dead in the water had the tape of sexual misconduct come out.
So Oprah has a built in 35% liberal base to start or right at 47,000,000. That number includes the eligible minority voters that normally turn out at 55% or so.Then add in an additional 5 million more minority voters than usually vote since it is a minority and a woman and we now have 52,000,000 voters. Now add to that an additional 3% of millennials voting and your up to 55,000,000. So just Oprah running will add around 7 million to the democrat turnout and Clinton won the 2016 election by about 2 million votes, she just lost in a few key states by less than 200,000. And my numbers don’t even begin to take into account the moderate left and independent voters that might have set out the 2016 election.
All of the is speculation and she may not run. Any smart business person is not going to run. Can she take what Trump has taken due to his business background and is she willing to risk her empire to 8 years of being president? No one knows, but if she runs, the GOP is in HUUGGEE difficulty!
I am not taking a position regarding Oprah. She is a nice enough person.
But I have no clue what kind of president she would be.
She has gone out of her way to avoid being tied strongly to any ideological positions.
Any democrat that makes it to the general can count on the votes of the majority of democrats. Just as any republican can count on most republicans.
The majority of voters are neither democrats nor republicans.
I just would not rush to judgement as to whether she would win or lose or even who she would be as a candidate or president.
Purportedly Oprah and Trump are actually friends.
But then Trump and Clinton were friends of a sort.
Jay as you like Brooks – here he is.
Mostly it is a pretty good column.
I do not follow D’sousa or Hanity so I do not know about them.
I do know that the reporters of the MSM – including the NYT has sufficiently damaged their reputations that they are not a reference to compare against.
I do not find much of NYT different from Breitbart or even infowars.
The number of pruportedly well sourced NYT anti-trump stories that have proven garbage is endless.
Much of what Trump claims about the effort to go after him – came from stories in NYT.
NYT first reported that Trump was “wiretapped” NYT first reported that the Steele Dossier was the source for the FISA warrant for Trump Tower.
Apparently it is only “fake news” when Trump repeats it.
I also have a problem with Brook’s highbrow/lowbrow distinction.
Again I do not follow the people he cites – but I do know that princtiples are actually simple.
Killing people is generally wrong. There are a few weel defined exceptions, but the principle is solid and simple, even the exceptions are simple.
Lots of things in the world are very complex. But not those involving the use of force.
The world can not work if the justifications for the use of force are complex.
If you wish to tell me that the mollecullar processes in a cell are complex and require a great deal of knowledge and study to understand – fine.
But do not try to tell me that the same is true of the determination whether I can kill my neighbor.
Governance is an extremely “low brow” process – it absolutely MUST be understandable to nearly everyone. Government is the use of force, and you do not get to say “trust me, I am the expert” when using force against others.
This is a very good column….one of the 1 or 2 good ones that Brooks writes every year.
The only quibble I would have, is that Brooks writes about the anti-Trump forces sinking to the level of the pro- Trump forces. I would say that it is precisely the opposite ~ that is, that Trump, and his supporters, decided to play the game the way that the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have been playing it for decades, while conservatives tried to go along or “stay above the fray.”
I could never understand why Obama was always attacking Fox News. After all, it was the ONLY news station that was not completely in the tank for him ( it was like Alabama football playing Podunk HS). But, then I realized that even one station, especially a popular station like Fox, was a threat, if it was reporting news that might pull the curtain back on some of the inconsistencies and lies of his administration (think IRS scandal, Obamacare, Benghazi, etc) So, the only way to combat that was to mock Fox, and delegitimize it, so that anything it reported was automatically discounted by pro-Obama forces.
As Brooks reminds us, in a war, nations often become more like their enemies.
Obama attacked Fox, because he expected zero votes or support from Fox viewers and attacking Fox was good for his base.
Trump’s attacks on the media work very much the same.
Trump is not getting votes from NYT or CNN or MSNBC viewers.
But attacking them is red meat to his base.
I am not a Trump supporter, and frankly I support his attacks on the media.
I wish he would make fewer mistakes,
Regardless our media has not represented unbiased journalism for some time.
I think using the term “conservative” is inaccurate, because I do not think that Trump supporters are conservatives – meaning those are overlapping but not synonymous.
Also something democrats do not understand.
Trump’s base includes alot of blue collar whites – who while not progressive are NOT conservative either. Trump’s immigration message and trade message and anti-PC message resonates with them.
Further, he does not have to give them what he promises. He just has to “feel their pain” as Bill Clinton would say.
These are people who have both been ignored by the left and the media and at the same time condemned.
Democrats do not understand how harmful this “hateful, hating hater” PC rant is to them.
I do not understand why democrats can not look at the country and see that Trump has targeted Democrats in PA, OH, WI,. MN – these used to be bread and butter democrats.
These people voted for Trump in larger than normal numbers and that tipped the election.
These are voters who have been ignored by both parties for decades.
These are voters that the left has been villifying for a decade.
If Romney had found the way to connect to them – Obama would have lost.
Trump is 100 times more wealthy than Romney – but he talks like a longshoremen, and he connects with these people.
NYT, CNN. WaPo DO NOT represent them.
This is also why the NFL Kerfluffle works for Trump.
The people upset about the players – are Trump voters.
He lit a match – and they ran with it.
I do not think it is so much that MSNBC, CNN, … are a threat.
I think it is that attacking them works for him – it has little downside and significant upside.
I would further note – these people DO NOT see the CNN, MSNBC, NYT reporters as like them.
These are not people they connect to. These are people the left connects to.
Attacking people who are never voting for you and whose supporters and defenders are never voting for you has little downside.
It is extremely wierd – Trump is the wealthiest president we have ever had.
And at the same time – he is the Andrew Jackson common man president of the 21st century.
You can see him inviting the masses to tear down the drapes in the whitehouse.
Even Trump’s ostentatious wealth.
Trump does nto behave like a Melon or a Murdock or a Ford, or a Walton,
He is a billionaire who spends his money – like someone who won the lottery.
His expressions of his own wealth are plebian, not arristocratic.
dduck12;
Here is a quote from another famous libertarian.
We have no problem with our government.
When a teacher is recognized to speak during the comment period of a school board meeting, asks questions of a school board that they would prefer not to hear, she is removed by the sherriff by force, arrested, and jailed overnight.
What I see in this video is an assault by an officer under color of authority – that is a crime.
The only crime committed here was by the sherrif.
I do not know what the teacher was talking about – and I do not care.
It doesn’t matter whether I agree with her or not.
It doesn’t matter if the board agrees.
Is this your idea of good government ?
Of good law enforcement ?
once again
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
When you are at odds with your government – you are in conflict with people who can legally assault you, kidnap you and even kill you.
And you may not resist.
That is not an accident, that is how it is supposed to be.
And that is why our laws must be very limited.
Because whatever those laws are – they justify assault, kidnapping, and even murder.
So we must be vigilant what we allow.
I know that is the “low brow” simplistic thinking that David Brooks laments.
But it the reality of government.
Even when abuses are rare – they are still real and still very serious.
But they are not all that rare.
In NYC sell a cigar for $0.11 too cheap – get fined $2600
Dduck12;
More of that “libertarian” crap from NBC chicago.
One of the problems with regulations is that there are always situations were they do more harm than good.
It is difficult to impossible to constrain a persons non-violent conduct in a way that you are not also barring conduct that under some circumstances could be good.
Not allowing people to sleep in basements sounds good – until you confront the instance where the alternative is sleeping outside in below zero weather.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/elgin-greg-schiller-slumber-parties-homeless-cold-467714563.html
dduck12;
More of that libertarian propoganda from one of those libertarian extremists.
More libertarian propoganda
Another example of regulation clearly making us worse off.
Californis is looking to overrule a wide variety of Zoning laws – because as study after tstudy has demonstrated the actual effects of zoning are bad.
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/09/california-bill-cutting-back-on-zoning-c?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
More libertarian agit prop.
This should give you a clue as to what bothers me about what occured in DOJ/FBI/NSA/CIA regarding Trump.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the Steele Dossier is the impetus for the administrations interest in the Trump campaign. Using unconfirmed OPO research provided by a political party friendly to that of the current administration as the basis for warrants is deeply politically corrupt.
Reason is here arguing that similarly improperly obtained evidence can not even be the basis to try to obtain proper evidence.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/09/federal-agencies-may-be-regularly-hiding
BTW we have pretty much admitted the same thing going on in the Ross Ulbricht/Silk Road case.
The FBI tracked down the Silk Road servers. That is what eventually lead them to Ross.
They claimed they tracked them down via a method that is plain flat out impossible.
Which pretty much means they used a means that they do not wish to admit.
Either it is illegal, or it is something they do not want people to know they can do.
While the latter sounds reasonable – it is not. We can only tell that government has not violated our rights – if they tell us how they obtained evidence against us.
If the government is unwilling to disclose how they obtained evidence – they can drop the case.
As they say on Game of Thrones, “If you come at the King, you’d best not miss”……
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/09/stephen-k-bannon-steps-breitbart-news-network/
If FBI and DOJ do not come up with something that predates their exposure to the Steele Dossier that provides a basis for the original investigation there is serious trouble – possibly criminal for some.
I would note something that McCarthy missed.
There have been 3 claims as the basis for the FISA warrant that NYT has run and claimed had credible sources.
FIRST they claimed it was based on the Steele Dossier. Now that it is known that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for that Dossier NYT is running away from that.
Then they claimed that independent information on Carter Page was the basis. We have no independent information on Page, and what actual evidence we have on Page leads to NOTHING.
Third NYT has more recently – with the same “government sources” claimed that Papadoulis drunken conversations overheard by Austrian diplomats are the basis.
There are timing problems with all claims except the Steele Dossier.
But there are other problems with the Papadoulis claim – nothing associated with Papadoulis leads to Page or Trump Tower. The FBI sought a FISA Warrant for Carter Page. Papadoulis never said anything about Page.
Details matter – they are part of how we tell when people are telling the truth and when they are lying.
McCarthy further notes that we may not yet know what FBI was shopping to the FISA court – but we do know that it was shopping the Steele Dossier claims to congress.
We are rapidly coming to the point at which – the Steele Dossier is not merely the source for the FISA warrants – it is the source for the entire Trump/Russia nonsense.
i.e. The Steele Dossier is the intelligence – the only intelligence that NSA or CIA or all these intelligence agencies ever had.
Simpson’s testimony has now been released by Sen. Feinstein.
We now have confirmation of two allegations by Simpson.
That someone died as a result of the leak of information from the Steel Dossier.
Given that Fusion GPS is responsible for its leaking that is troubling.
Aparently their allowed to be careless with what they claim is true and dangerous intelligence, but evenone else must keep it hush hush.
That the FBI had a mole in the Trump organization. While not impossible – that is highly improbable. Moles are not easily recruited, they take time and campaigns are relatively short.
But lets assume this story is true.
You would think the press would have gotten word of that before this week. You would have thought as this story leaks like a seive that would have gotten out a year ago. You would think that Mueller would have this guy in a safe house under an assumed name.
Finally you would think if this person exists, they must have such daming information that everything else we are debating would be inconsequential. Mueller could get their statement confirm it against know facts to the greatest extent possible, and roll up the entire organization.
The other possibility – more likely given the tawdry history fo the Steele Dossier – is it is just more fake news from Simpson that has torn this nation apart for 2 years.
There is no crime of deciving half the country and wasting everyone’s lives. If there was Simpson would receive the death sentence.
Finally – remember the Bundy’s – it is already evident that the Obama administration – including BLM,. DOJ and FBI will lie, cheat steal and beat people up that they do not like.
That they will setup snipers to zero in on people they do not beleive are dangerous or violent.
Look at what we know was done to the Bundy;s and ask if it si so hard to beleive that the DOJ and FBI conducted themselves within the law when investigating Trump.
AGAIN the least rights any of us can be assured of are the most rights we allow those we loath the most. There is no reason to expect that DOJ/FBI would treat Trump better than the Bundy family. They loathed both.
The real test of bias is whether you can follow the law when your are dealing with people you think are scum. DOJ/FBI failed that with the Bundy’s. They clearly failed in the opposite direction with Clinton. Why should we beleive they did better with Trump ?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455267/christopher-steele-dossier-obama-administration-hillary-clinton-campaign-congress-fisa-court
Oprah:
Just a couple years ago I and many others said: anyone but Hillary.
Then Trump was nominated, and I said: anyone but Trump.
Now, I am not so fast to jump on the bandwagon for anyone but Trump.
I have always wanted someone with some demonstrated experience in governing and at least the appearance of good judgement. In this tribal political world, someone tough and strong, enough to battle and smart enough to forge coalitions would be nice.
A pretty face, a lot of money, celebrity, and good PR are not enough, this is not a high school popularity contest.
This blog:
It may be my laptop, but a while after opening TNM. my computer acts like it is in molasses. I also get a quick flash that script is running message. I usually restart to clear the problem, or shut TNM and open again. Could there be gunk in this blog?
dduck, Im not technically literate, but when this site is opened, it has to open every comment. And when I open it with my desk top PC with a slower internet from Windstream, I can see every link that has to be linked to in any comment being accessed. You Tube links take long enough to almost read the complete link before it moves on to another news site or twitter link.
With over 2000 comment, it takes my amazon fire minutes to open the blog to post comments. My desk top is faster, but it now is to the point that one comment is about my limit instead of a conversation on a subject.
As you note – there are technical issues and somethings vary from ISP, while others vary between computers, and browsers.
Much of the time I am not having the same problems as others.
I get new comments via email. I read them in my email client.
If I wish to respond – I click reply in the email client.
As the # of commnets grows it takes longer to load TNM and get to the reply box – it is currently taking about 30s – which is not too bad.
I typically click reply and go do something else.
By reading comments in email – I can go back and forth from the comment I am replying to in email and the reply box in Chrome/TNM.
I typically use Chrome/Linux as my desktop and mostly the performance is very good.
But when I have too many browser tabs open – my whole computer chokes.
Or if I am copying large amounts of files from a command line.
I have a really crappy internet provider,
Anyway, that is my envirnoment, and it works pretty well for TNM for me – but not perfectly.
Subjectively I beleive that video links slow TNM more than anything else.
Subjectively from complaints of others I am suspicious that those using Mac Tablets are having the most problems.
I think performance varies radically not only from website to website and ISP to ISP but also from browser to browser. I have alot of problems with Chrome – but I had worse problems with Firefox.
I like your remarks on Oprah.
I do not personally value experience in government. I think it may be harmful.
Mostly I think the kind of experience that Trump and Oprah bring is much more valuable.
That exception is that our goal for government should NOT be the easy and efficient use of force.
I am personally ambivalent regarding Oprah at the moment.
Just as with Trump – her skills and success in numerous divergent areas indicate both significant intelligence, judgement and the ability to accomplish things.
My concern regarding Oprah is that her public political expression on issues relative to government has over the years been extremely thin – and I suspect deliberately so.
Oprah has not been succesful and gotten wealthy by advocating for an ideology,
but by leaving people accross the country – both left and right with the impression that she knows them and understands them and shares their values.
If she is forced to commit to specific values she will lose some of her supporters.
In myriads of ways she is the “anti=Trump”.
While Trump will spout off without thought about absolutely anything.
Oprah gets others to talk and in doing so leaves everyone with the impression she understands them.
Oops, not only has the FBI been illegally spying on us – it has been giving the results to people outside of government.
https://www.circa.com/story/2017/05/25/politics/declassified-memos-show-fbi-illegally-shared-spy-data-on-americans-with-private-parties
It does if you are white.
Yeah, she was doing fine with the “loving your culture” part, but the “putting your race first” goes right into full-on racist territory.
This idea, that only whites can be racist, is one of the most toxic ideas that progressives push…I find it hard to believe that they truly believe this. Oh, I know that some do, but I think that many, and, in particular, the thought leaders of the movement, are just power-hungry racists themselves, and know that they can get away with this garbage.
Who will build the roads ?
If necescary – criminals
https://fee.org/articles/russian-smugglers-renovate-road-neglected-by-the-government/
A bit of a functioning libertopia – in atlanta – a private city within a city of sorts.
https://fee.org/articles/how-policing-works-in-a-privatized-city/
More libertarian agit prop.
Note: I can no longer access NM on my iPad. I had to resurrect my desktop to get to the site. That’s an annoying inconvenient process. Like Ron, I’m fed up with it and I won’t be responding for a while after today’s posts, until the loading problem is fixed.
So, Dave, I read a pretty good explanation of the 702 “about queries” issue that we were discussing further up the thread.
A 702 query takes place after an initial search on a foreign surveillance target.
In the example I read, let’s say the NSA locates a Russian lawyer, using her known cell phone #, so they know that she’s in Trump Tower. They can then use a 702 query to search all ip addresses and/or cell phone data in Trump Tower by simply filling out an authorization form explaining why their query is needed. The authorization form functions like a warrant, and allows the existing data to be searched legally, even if that data is on Americans. The authorization form can be filled out retroactively, as well, and the data from those ip addresses and cell phones can be reviewed and searched on an ongoing basis, even after the initial foreign target is no longer in Trump Tower.
So, if the Russian lawyer shows up for just one meeting, it’s possible that those in the building at the time could be surveilled for months afterward, and their names could be unmasked.
I think I better understand what you were trying to explain about the spike in 702 queries, and why this could legitimately be considered a back-door way to spy on Americans, without obtaining a warrant. If I am still misunderstanding this, let me know…..
It is impossible to know whether you or I correctly understand this.
Much of the process – whether as explained by you or I or as read elsewhere is determined through leaks, deduction, and the bits and peices that sneak out in public testimony.
What we know is that the government engages in mass data collection as part of our foreign intelligence efforts. That the information collected includes information on US persons,
and that constitutional procedural safeguards exist to impeded warantless searches of US persons occuring as a result of foreign intelligence gathering, and finally that procedural breaches occur – and that the frequency of breaches increased with the Obama administration.
Everything else that we “know” is the result of things like Snowden’s leaks, deduction from remarks made in public hearings and other such trickles into the public.
Personally I am opposed. Nothing I have read or know of leads me to beleive that our foreign intelligence services have provided worthwhile value ever. We are told that their successes are secret and we must Trust them. I do not.
BTW I do not really consider our foreign diplomatic services of consequential value either.
We vastly over estimate the benefits of government efforts to help us.
I am with George Washington in his Farewell address. And to a lessor extent Trump.
I am not a big fan of foreign commitments.
What is absolutely self evident at this point is that the Obama administration was spying on political opponents.
That is “Bigger that watergate” – Watergate was little different than Clinton paying Steele for dirt on Trump – except that CREEP’s efforts to get OPO research involved actual burglary.
What occured in 2016 involved the actual use of government agencies to tilt an election or to provide “insurance” in the event of an undesireable outcome.
To me this is an absolutely huge deal.
To those on the left who do not understand – substitute Trump and his people for Obama and his, and Say Oprah in 2020 for Trump in 2016 and then tell me that it would be acceptable for the Trump administration to be “investigating” Candidate Oprah.
All hell would break loose. Trump would be justifiably impeached in 30sec.
Yet, if we do nothing about this, if the strongest result is that the Trump attacks fizzle, we will guarantee this happens again.
What we have is a system of law and government that has institutionalized corruption by ONE SIDE.
Those on the left are permitted to break the rules with impunity. Those on the right must very carefully color inside the lines.
The law only works one way.
To be clear – I have no problem holding the right accountable for the least but of wrongdoing.
Should Trump act (as president) on any of his assorted threats to free speach, I will be at the front of the line demanding his impeachment. But thus far Trump is all talk and no action with respect to acts that would be absolutely impermissible for me.
Again reflecting this lopsided application of the law.
Trump threatens that the FCC should go after his political enemies – in the past the FCC DID go after broadcasters on the right – I would suggest reading “the good guys, the bad guys, and the First Amendment” by Fred Friendly – former President of CBS.
Or we have the Obama administration IRS targeting Tea Party Groups.
To what extent does the left have to be politically corrupt before we are willing to hold them accountable ?
I keep noting that it is really really important to grasp that “the ends do not justify the means”.
But that is precisely what we do with much of the left and its efforts.
The left opposes racism – by any means necescary, so no mater how lawlessly or stupidly they target racism, you can not say STOP, because otherwise you are racist.
My view of Obama and the Obama administration was not good in Nov. 2016, but mostly it was one of incompetence. My view has become one of malignancy.
The left fears and authoritarian Trump – yet thus far Trump has accomplished everything he has done in the most anti-authoritarian way possible.
The left accuses Trump of Authoritarianism for returning to following the law as written.
I do not like some of those laws, and I fully support changing them.
But the rule of law means following the law as is, until it is changed or found unconstitutional.
We all knew in 2016 that the Obama administration acted unbound by the law.
That is the authoritarianism we need fear.
If Trump acted as Obama did – even a little – he would be impeached in a second.
What does it take to get one set of rules that everyone plays by ?
We have had a year of absolute total left outrage, foaming and spittle over what was always self evidently nothing, and what increasinly is becoming less than nothing.
At the same time we have found far more egregious conduct than Trump has been accused of inside the Obama administration – and almost no one cares.
This bothers me alot. If we do nothing – this will become the new norm.
Thanks for the research.
I do not recall what I posted before. Regardless the more we know the worse this all gets.
I would note, I have serious problems with the entire patriot act and mass surveilance.
I do not care if it is being used by democrats, republicans, ….
It is in my view an abuse of our rights if used “properly” and it too attractive to those who would use it improperly.
Power WILL be abused. Whether by Bush, Obama or Trump.
I would again encourage viewing the netflix documentary on Bill Brinley.
After that I would view some of the Youtube clips of him.
But I would do it in that order.
Though Brinley is intelligent and articulate, the things he says in the clips seem too much like tinfoil hat conspiracies.
But I am pretty sure that Brinley and his people are a highly credible source.
Nor are they partisan, they have been shooting down Intelligence garbage since they left the NSA after 2001.
Anyway, there are independent problems.
One is that the survailance power of the federal government is far to great,
Another is that it is being abused,
and the last is that it is being abused politically.
I have not been using Google for some time So I guess I missed this.
There does not seem to be any reason to go back to Google.
I am fully prepared to jump ship to Internet services and social media that do not censor or comment on content.
If Der Sturmer wants a Facebook page – let them.
If Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc feel they need to censor or comment on the content of other – then I do not need them.
If I want the view of the left on an issue – I will go to DailyKos or NYT where I do not expect objectivity.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-feature-almost-exclusively-targets-conservative-sites/
Jeffrey Tucker addresses water here, Penn & Teller have done a more humorous job attacking recycling.
I just finished a wonderful interview of Alex Epstein by Dave Rubin that was supposed to be about climate change,
but the actual theme of all of these was that the left seeks to make human progress, flourishing and quality of life immoral.
Nature is morally neutral. Morality does not exist outside of human behavior.
Nature can obliterate human life, or dinosaurs or anything it pleases without punishment.
The presumed destruction of the planet, is only immoral to the extent it harms humans or things humans value.
There is no moral value to some specific state of nature. There is no moral distinction between a cooler planet or a warmer one, to a Planet with Carrier Pigeons wr without.
Human destruction or preservation of the environment is only about humans.
This fake morality of the left results in idiotically elevating human asceticism. self flagellation, masochism and denial.
Human progress means the improvement of human life. If that means better longer showers – that use more water, if that means not wasting time sorting plastics in our garbage, if that means 10gal toilet flushes Then that is GOOD if it makes life better for humans.
We can weigh whatever factors we wish into our determiniation as to what is better for humans.
Further we may end up working to reduce many of the same things we are reducing for fake eco moral reasons – for the very real reason that Human life improves when we produce more with less.
Our consumption is about our needs and wants There is no external objective standard – beyond that we can not act to harm others in order to meet our own needs and wants.
https://www.aier.org/blog/what-has-government-done-our-bathrooms
As the use of psychiatry as a political and criminal weapon returns to Putin’s Russia we should think twice about the nonsense the left is pushing here.
The mental health of those we disagree with is ALWAYS dubious.
Weaponizing psychiatry for political purposes is no less disreputable in the US than in Putin’s Russia.
“To those on the left who do not understand – substitute Trump and his people for Obama and his, and Say Oprah in 2020 for Trump in 2016 and then tell me that it would be acceptable for the Trump administration to be “investigating” Candidate Oprah.
All hell would break loose. ”
Of course it would. Yet, people like Jay will never admit that they believe that the very same act that would cause them to rise up and revolt (rightfully) if it were done to “their” candidate, is just hunky-dory is it’s done to stop a candidate that they don’t like.
If Trump used the full power of the intelligence community and the DOJ to spy on and then accuse candidate Oprah of things that were untrue, or at the very least, unproven, impeachment would be the least of his worries. He would be lucky not to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Yet, Obama and Hillary did just that to him, and have so far gotten away with it…..
I care much more about what Trump does than what he says.
I care much more about what Obama did than what he said.
I care much more about what those in DOJ and FBI did than what they said.
If you discard what Trump says, what we have left is a president that is providing little in the way of direction to the rest of the executive.
That the most significant things he has done are to put people in charge who to a large extent are intent on following the law as it is exists, undoing the efforts of the prior administration to do more than the law allowed and to get government out of its own and everyone else’s way.
I do not think That Trump is some perfect libertarian.
His words continue to scare me. But I support much more of what he has done than I expected to, and will cautiously continue to do so so long as Trump’s authoritarianism is confined to words.
The Obama administration was a lawless failure – prior to the election.
But I am thoroughly shocked at what has subsequently come out.
The left is threatening to burn everything down – over a fake narative that never happened.
Not only is there no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. Mo one short of a dolt actually thinks Russia had any actual impact on the election.
They have had a huge impact post election, they have certainly gotten an enormous payback on a miniscule investment. Our own credibility in our own system has been destroyed.
Putin can hold whatever sham elections he wishes and few of us will believe our own system is much different.
Yes, Trump won a close election and any of myriads of factors could have tipped it the other way.
Of course only a few small changes could have turned it into a Trump rout.
But more important still is that almost 65M americans said we are tired of being called hateful hating haters and will not stand for this anymore.
It does not matter whether that is 49% of us, or 51.
I can not seem to get through to any here that you can not use force against others merely because 5 of 9 agree to do so. The use of force can not be merely majoritarian – minimum, but not sufficient it must be super majoritarian.
At various times in history a majority of us have wanted some very evil things.
Once the left understood that the rights of the minority Trump the whim of the majority.
Regardless we are politically unstable if 49% of us are strongly opposed to what 51% of us badly wish to do. The only resolution is to NOT act as the majority wishes.
Again once the left understood that.
If we could change the labels such that those having their rights abused today were called by the appropriate intersectional labels for high status victomhood the left would easily understand the evil being done.
But the left does nto seek the rule of law, but the rule of man.
More Paranoid Priscilla Poop.
First, if Pres $hitHole had run as a Democrat, the FBI would have followed the EXACT same courses of action. Doofus Donald looked like he could be threatened with blackmail by the Russians, therefore a threat to the US. They had a responsibility to warn Congress and the President. Their job is to protect the nation against Manchurian-like Candidates likely to be manipulated by foreign powers. And $hitHole fit that description to a T. And still does. Nobody yet knows how deeply tRUMP and Putin are bound together in mutual self-interest. Have you noticed tRUMP still hasn’t signed the Russian Sanctions legislation MONTHS after it was sent to him? Why not?
And those two FBI agents you’re bitching about would be heroes in your mind for emailing the EXACT same negative feelings about the ‘person’ – irrespective of party. If you say otherwise you’re a hypocrite party-first pusillanimous Republican.
Oh, right, we’ve already established that.
If the DNC and Clinton campaign had Paid Perkins Coie to hire Fusion GPS to hire Steele to hire Russians to get OPO research on Sanders. Constructed a tissue of lies, and then walked it into the FBI as legitimate intelligence, and the FBI had used it to wiretap the Sanders campaign.
Everyone involved would and should go to jail.
It does nto matter whether this is inter party or intra party. It is still massively politically corrupt.
The crap Clinton pulled with Sanders in the DNC is immoral, but perfectly legal.
But if she had entangled the federal government into it, it would be illegal.
If as Priscilla seems to have found Fusion GPS was a government contractor doing 702 about queries – this gets even more revolting.
But this is already worse than Watergate.
You do know that Nixon tried to use the IRS and the FBI to go after his enemies ?
Well the Obama administration DID use the IRS and the FBI to go after its enemies.
And no Jay, I do not think anyone here beleive you would not be screaming Bloody murder if Republicans were not the victims of this.
The only reason that you are blind to the heinous corruption here – is because there is no corrupt means you are not prepared to justify if it gets Trump.
So you would find it acceptable if The 2020 Trump campaign uses the FBI to “investigate” political opponents ?
Every Scandal gets compared to watergate.
But this one has an incredible factual resemblance.
Nixon sought to use the CIA, FBI and the IRS to go after his enemies (The NSA did not exist at the time), Because they refused, he put together the Plumbers.
Obama had no need for the Plumbers, because the FBI, CIA, DOJ, IRS, and NSA all used their governmental powers to serve Obama’s political interests and pursue his political enemies.
Trump defenders Claim that the Steele Dossier is the sole basis for the investigation of the Trump campaign. And that it was never sufficient.
That appears to be likely true. Regardless, the burden of proving a sufficient basis for investigations and warrants rests with the government – not Trump supporters.
To Justify and investigation into Trump, those involved must proved that in July of 2016 they had sufficient evidence to investigate the Trump campaign.
Even today – almost two years later – with Mueller investigating for a full year, we still have nothing that is sufficient to justify an investigation of a political opponent NOW – much less 2 years ago.
In July of 2016 the FBI had only two bits of information:
The Steele Dossier and a bit of drunken gossip regarding Papadoulis.
The IC assessment – which was conducted as a rush job, outside of normal procedures and was itself based on the Steele Dossier did not exist at the time – and was never used by the FBI to seek a warrant.
The few inconsequential bits that have been added since then – which actually refute an established link between Trump and Russia, were not known by the FBI at that time.
In fact the FBI never uncovered the Meeting between Trump Jr. and Natalia, that was actually exposed by Trump Jr. Further that meeting was fruitless and demonstrates that there was no back channel to Russia or the meeting would have been unnecescary.
So even today with millions invested in investigating, there is still not sufficient basis for a warrant.
That is prima fascia proof of misconduct.
This is also relevant with respect to McCabe, and Comey and many of the rest of these bad actors.
The left has gone out of its way to try to concoct a claim of Obstruction of Justice by Trump.
How is it possibly obstruction to attempt to shut down an investigation that OBVIOUSLY has no basis in the first place ?
Priscilla raises the Question of Trump investigating Oprah.
That is a very relevant question.
How much “evidence” is necescary for Republicans to investigate Democrats ?
To this day there is far more evidence of “collusion” between the Clinton’s and the Russians than between Trump and Russians.
Further the DNC and HFA were in bed with DOJ and FBI both protecting the Clinton’s and pursuing Trump.
I do not care if you impeach Trump – I still want the misconduct of the Obama administration thoroughly investigated and thoroughly punished.
One of the things that the House and Senate committees have not done, that needs done is to legislatively spell out the conditions under which the executive branch can investigate political opponents.
Clearly we need rules that apply equally to all. And clearly we do not have them.
Well I could not go without commenting on this headline. Clicked on “reply” and went off to put cloths in the washer while this loaded!
“The House just renewed a warrantless surveillance law without any privacy reform”
This is one I am praying that obstruction from different wings of the parties keeps that from happening. Maybe Rand Paul and a few others can insure its demise.
Anyone that believes we are safer with this in place where the government can monitor you if you happen to be in contact with someone involved in an investigation, I think they are crazier than what they believe the president to be. Section 702 gives way too much power to the government to scoop up information through surveillance of American activities.
Young people get their pants in a wad when net neutrality is being eliminated, but not a word when their rights are being infringed on.
I guess its all what you think important.
Many in congress have admitted that the entire program is at best in the grey area of constitutionality.
The purpose of this program is to “keep us safe” from terrorists.
No evidence has ever been made public that it has done so.
Various figures such as Clapper and Brennan have claimed that it has done so – but refuse to provide any examples. No congressmen or staffer has ever leaked even a hint from classified briefings that this has done anything to keep us safer.
The big leaks from CIA and NSA such as the Leak from Snowden and the more recent one provide absolutely no evidence that this program has ever thwarted a single terrorist attack.
Of the successful and unsuccessful efforts to thwart Terrorism world wide, these have all developed from information secured from other sources.
Where we know actual attacks have been thwarted – these have universally be thwarted by individuals not in government acting on their own. Such as passengers on airplanes looking out for their own safety.
Even if we believe government claims that this surveillance is necessary – its use outside of actual counter-terrorism is NOT.
The moment that this is used in a way that involves spying on US persons, there should be a warrant.
I am concerned about far more than this Trump/Russia garbage. But that has aptly demonstrated not only the potential for abuse – but the actual abuse of this system.
At this time it is self evident that the Obama administration used this law to spy on political enemies. The press has made little of the evidence that the Obama administration political spying dates back atleast to 2013 and probably 2010 – long before Trump, or Steele.
But we can talk about what happened with Trump – because so much of it has been made public.
It is again self evident at this point that the FBI/DOJ took an interest in the Trump Campaign as a consequence of being fed the Steele Dossier. It is further evident that having engaged in surveilance of the Trump campaign – both with and without warants for the better part of a year, that they came up with NOTHING. It is further evident that this illegal interest in the Trump Campaign went much further than DOJ/FBI – that Samatha Powers and Susan Rice – both in positions that would have nothing to do with investigations were requesting and receiving intelligence on the activities of the Trump Campaign.
In another story unrelated to Trump, various government agencies are now teaching local and state law enforcement what they call “parallel construction”
What is this ? Quite simply this is teaching Law Enforcement to use illegally obtained evidence to construct a plausible case to get a search warrant or arrest or conviction, using the illegally obtained evidence – but without leaving a record that the court or defense can find to know that illegal means were used in the investigation.
I am not sure what it takes for others here to understand that whatever you allow government to do with those you hate the most – that is what they can do with you.
Jay has made it repeatedly clear that he thinks Trump is a crook, engaged in money laundering and all kinds of illegal dealings.
That may be true – but there is no evidence of that beyond the belief that people can not do what he has done without committing crimes.
After almost 2 years of investigation, no one can provide actual evidence of any crime.
Those like Jay are still “hoping” to find evidence.
This is the equivalent to my saying
Jay lives in CA and we all know everyone from CA is a perve therefore the FBI should investigate Jay because he must be a perve.
We do not investigate people, based on non-specific allegations without evidence.
Anyone interested in moving over the Ricks “Wild Card Debate” where there are only 100 or so comments. Maybe before that get filled up and chokes on too many comments there like this one is doing he will have his ability to post new articles.
Just a thought
RonP: Great suggestion. Thanks
OK
Where is our voice of reason? We haven’t heard a thing in months.
Email Rick…
He had issues with a lost password, could not get help from wordpress( wordpress sucks), said he was working to post an article he wrote and has not been heard from since December.
He apparently has abandoned the site, there is 4-5 of us using the site to continue commenting on issues that come up until this site explodes and then ??????. When that happens we will all be more productive.
I am glad to surmise, from Ron P’s March 13th post, that Rick Bayan is still alive!
PatRiot, I have no idea what happened to Rick. I suspect a UFO hoovered over his home before Christmas and when he took out the trash he was beamed aboard and no one has heard from him since. Dave, Priscilla, Jay, myself and very sparsely, Mike, are the rag tag remnants that are still commenting on Ricks site until we overload wordpress, at which time we will have to find a new home for our obnoxious behaviors.But there are still sections of his home page that may take some time to fill up. Maybe we can go to his Facebook page and mess with that also. Right now we are on the diversity comment page.
Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump continues to follow through on many of his campaign promises…
American companies are expanding rather than shipping jobs overseas
Unemployment rate at 4.1%–lowest in 17 years
41% decline in illegal southern border crossings
NATO members to honor financial commitments
Appointed FDA Chief is fostering generic drug competition–2017 a record-breaking year for generic drug approvals
just to name a few
President Trump is a Patriot
Many Americans are still distracted by the mass media drama and the perceived affronts to their precious “identities,” but, meanwhile, President Trump is a Patriot
just in time