How Moderates Can Transform American Politics, Part 2: Building a Movement
In my eleven years at the helm of The New Moderate, I’ve tried to promote sensible positions on political and cultural issues while America has split into two warring tribes. As moderates, we seem to be stranded in a bleak no-man’s land between the angry social justice warriors of the left and the ornery traditionalists on the right. I’ve enjoyed taking righteous potshots at both camps, of course, but it’s clear that we need to do more.
In Part 1, I wrote about the need to build bridges between the two tribes… to convince them that their common values and interests outweigh their differences. But we also need to take it a step further: to build a revolutionary moderate movement that will transform our barren no-man’s land into a fertile and appealing place for Americans to settle down and live amicably with their neighbors. It won’t be easy, of course. (No great undertaking ever is.) Even if we succeed, we can’t (and shouldn’t) expect everyone to move to the middle. But if we love this country enough to care about its future, we have no choice but to save it from those who sow perpetual discord and division. My plan is hardly definitive, but it’s a start…
1. Know what you believe. Moderates don’t subscribe to a rigid ideology, so it can be a tricky matter for us to hammer out a coherent set of political beliefs. If we have one dominant principle, it’s this: we’re sticklers for fairness. We don’t believe in promoting the interests of one class of people over those of any other class. We also tend to favor a happy medium between unchecked libertarianism and absolute government authority. Remember, too, that a moderate doesn’t always have to choose a spot midway between the right and left on every issue. In wildly polarized times, it’s probably more important to balance the boat. When politicians cut taxes for the rich during a period of widening wealth inequality, feel free to tilt against the excesses of crony capitalism. When academic leftists and hardened feminists demonize white males, be fearless enough to challenge their bigotry and risk their wrath. It’s not that you’re anti-capitalist or a misogynistic white supremacist; you’re simply opposing the pull of extremism with common sense — so our boat doesn’t tip over and go down.
2. Hold the middle! When you’re bombarded by popular extremist opinions in the social media day after day, it can be a challenge to keep the faith. Everyone seems to be deserting the middle. You’ll feel pressured by friends and pundits to stop being “wishy-washy” and join their tribe. You might even worry about being socially shunned if you don’t. Refuse to be swayed by fashionable groupthink from the left or right. Don’t close your mind to reasonable ideas from either end of the spectrum, but don’t capitulate, either. Take pride in holding the middle ground between the warring factions, and be fierce in defending it. Outspoken, steadfast, radical moderates are the last, best hope of saving America from itself in polarized times.
3. Influence reasonable liberals and conservatives. It’s almost impossible to convince the most extreme extremists to change their views; if anything, they’ll just dig in more deeply. But rational liberals and conservatives are another story. When you see them posting divisive memes that they’ve picked up on the internet, go ahead and dispute their second-hand ideas in a friendly but assertive manner. Worst-case scenario: they’ll disagree with you and post more wrongheaded memes. Best-case scenario: they’ll see your point, open their minds to ideas outside their echo chamber, and be less inclined to fall for destructive extremist rhetoric. They might even move toward the center of the political spectrum. The result: we marginalize the hard-core extremists and undermine their influence
4. Build a powerful media presence. There’s a vast void in the middle of the political media landscape. Between MSNBC and Fox News, between HuffPost and Breitbart, you can almost hear the wind howling. Why? Extremist views are easy to communicate (and understand) because they’re devoid of nuance. They rouse the emotions and boost ratings. Most dangerously, they’re splitting America at the seams. What will it take for moderates to build a media presence? Short of pooling our dollars to buy a major network, we can start by creating a prominent online platform. Problem: It’s probably easier to herd cats than persuade moderates to collaborate. We’re a notoriously independent and disputatious breed. Put five moderates in a room and you’ll end up with 15 different opinions. (For starters, we can stop quibbling over the difference between “moderate” and “centrist.”) Too many moderates also tend to be policy wonks; if we want to attract a mass audience, we need to display a little more flash and outrage. Solution: We’ll have to shed our egos, agree that we won’t agree on everything, and build that visible platform to save America from terminal tribalism. There’s a desperate need for an alternative to the combative “either/or” media choices, and we’re it. Once we’ve gained greater visibility through collaboration, we’ll be in a better position to attract a loyal base. We can (and must) rewrite the distorted narratives coming from the right and left. Our example might even persuade some of the more partisan media to dial back their agenda-driven news coverage.
5. Support existing nonpartisan groups. Until we moderates build our own movement, we can associate with the best groups that uphold our principles. No Labels, a national organization launched in 2010 as a call for nonpartisanship and political cooperation across the aisle, is the best-known –- and still going strong. AllSides is a welcome online news and opinion source that fights polarization by giving a voice to reasonable viewpoints across the spectrum. Better Angels brings “red” and “blue” Americans together –- literally –- in local grassroots workshops. The group’s goal isn’t to convert either side, but to defuse the open hostility between liberals and conservatives. Unite America fills an important niche by supporting the primary campaigns of independent and moderate politicians against their more extremist rivals in the two major parties. If they succeed by helping moderate politicians replace the hyperpartisans, we might not even have to consider the next step…
6. Establish a major centrist party. Yes, I know the odds are against us. Several embryonic centrist parties already exist, and they haven’t made a ripple. The Republicans and Democrats enjoy a long-entrenched duopoly comparable to Coke and Pepsi. Although no new major party has established itself permanently in American politics since the Republicans burst onto the scene in 1854 (that’s eightscore and four years ago!), numerous third-party candidates have tipped close elections. That could be us. Moreover, both major parties are deserting the middle, leaving fertile ground for a new party to arise. The Republicans shifted to the right with the Tea Party during President Obama’s first term. Now the Democrats, fresh from the triumphs of young multicultural progressives in the recent midterm elections, have been shifting left. Both parties are losing touch with the majority of Americans. Fed up with the “God, guns and greed” mentality of today’s Republicans and the petulant identity politics of the Democrats, they’d be primed for the debut of a dynamic moderate party. (We’ll just have to come up with a sexier name than “moderate” or “centrist.”) Of course, any such party would have to raise megatons of money to break the duopoly, and we’d need to recruit rock-star names in politics and the media to aid our cause. But unless the two major parties start favoring reasonable candidates who can win broad popular support, history will be tapping us on the shoulder and forcing us to make a decision: let the squabbling partisans and their followers rip the country asunder, or forge a movement to bridge the divide and restore some semblance of sanity to American politics.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Hi Rick I’m with you! Sign me up for this new political party.
Thank you, Iftikhar
Sent from my iPhone
>
If the two major parties continue to drift apart and impose “purity” tests on their candidates, it might be our time to take action.
Wish I would see more articles from this group. Facebook seems to be the method that people are using today to communicate, so do you have a FB page and Twitter account?
I have a New Moderate page on Facebook, but I haven’t actively maintained it because the discussions there were competing with the discussions here, and I didn’t have time to manage both. As for Twitter, I tried it for a year or two and amassed a grand total of 140 followers — not nearly enough to make it worthwhile. (I spend way too much time online as it is.) I’ll resume cross-posting on the New Moderate Facebook page and maybe even tweet occasionally. Thanks for the encouragement!
I so often feel like you express my exact thoughts and this column is no exception. I would like to sign on to this movement too and hope we could gain traction. For now, I will follow your FB page even though I am no fan of social media. Gotta start somewhere. Us fair minded people who actually think for ourselves aren’t out screaming everywhere like the far left and right but it’s time we do something.
“You’ll feel pressured by friends and pundits to stop being “wishy-washy” and join their tribe.”
No shit. I’m a clearly left leaning moderate…not what I’d call “centrist”, but not far left, either. I tried to interact with a group of Tea Party and Libertarian folk to “find the middle ground.” That was a HUGE waste of my time, and the verbal abuse was astounding for a group of people who like to taut themselves as “Christian.” Similarly with the “progressives”; in my community, if you don’t join with the radical left, you are on the outs, plain and simple, and the local progressive leader even used these same words with me as you used here: he called me “wishy washy.”
So be it! I enjoy my freedom and I refuse to be forced into these extremist camps for the sake of social inclusion. I still find myself voting Democratic, because it seems the only party with any sense of real morals anymore. I don’t see a snowball’s chance in Hell of a middle third party winning. We just need to hold our ground and move our preferred party to the middle.
Anonymous, I agree with you concerning the reactions one finds on other sites. While you are left leaning and vote democrat due to the “moral” issues, I am a right leaning ( more Libertarian ) leaning individual that votes more closely with the GOP (except for 2016 when voting for Johnson, the lessor of totally awful candidates). While you are more accepting of “force” by government (ie requiring people who do not want nor need health insurance to buy it), I value individual rights ,states rights and fiscal responsibility.
But unlike other sites where you and I would be chastised for our thoughts, we can at keast discuss our difference here without personal attacks.
(That is not to say there are not avfew here that do stoop to personal attacks and maybe, in some way, a few of mine.may be considered personal)
Rick, in most of your comments about income inequality and tax policies like giving breaks to the rich, do these type comment by politicians and media not further divide a country by economic class instead of working on the REAL PROBLEM? That being the billions spent annually.on waste, fraud and useless and unneeded programs.
Could we not start with something most people could get behind? That being programs and expenditures that provide substantial returns on expenditures instead of fractions of a dollar for a dollar spent. Right now, each dollar spent has the potential to create multiple dollars of expense due to interest on overspending, which provides little in return.
Once we fix the candy jar of spending by congress, then we could attack the tax issues. But why tax more to waste more?
Ron: It’s possible to call out unfair practices (like cutting taxes on the rich when they’re already widening the wealth gap) without demonizing any class of people or causing class warfare. At the same time, it’s possible (and it should be a priority) to curb wasteful spending. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, if the Republicans hadn’t given such a generous gift to their wealthy friends, we wouldn’t be running up such a huge deficit.
I’d like to see a Moderate 3rd Party emerge, but not until AFTER Trump is gone.
A moderate party before 2020 is more likely to siphon votes away from whoever the Dems nominate, then from Trump.
Trumpism is a disease. The body politic first has to remove him from the system, then Moderates hopefully will help eliminate the residual stain left behind.
Jay, I wonder if the candidate was truely a moderate and not a recycled democrat or republican if the drain would be.more from the left. Everything I see is America is a right leaning country, so why would someone like Trump maintain the vote, while the moderate democrats would choose the third party? Right now I see on average where 52% of the voters disapprove of Trumps performance.
Doesnt it really come down to effective tax legislation, protecting American jobs, expectations of a non political judiciary and freedom of choice? If not, why didnt Clinton defeat Trump with a program of higher taxes, more social programs, continuation of the ACA forcing people to buy a private company product and support of trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP? And looking at the vote in 2016, if her program was the best, why wasnt it acceptible to the people of PN, WI and OH.? Why was it only acceltable if far left leaning states like CA?
I believe given a candidate that is right of moderate with Libertarian leanings ( meaning freedom of choice from abortion & marriage to healthcare coverage) would draw just as many votes from a jerk like Trump as someone like Booker, Sanders or even another Clinton run.
Or better: the moderate right Republican you describe defeates Trump in the primaries, and a moderate left Dem wins the democratic primary – and America benefits if either of them gets elected.
But if Trump is the candidate, the never trumpers have to vote Dem again, as they did in the midterms, which means no third party to siphon votes.
Isnt it interesting that we are discussing the president like they are a ruler. It just dawned on me that JFK or Ronald Reagan could be president today and not be anywhere near as effective due to the congress we have now. We need moderates in congress and it wont make a bit of difference who is president. Bernie Sanders could be lresident and get little in thecway of social programs. Obama would never had Obamacare passed with “force” had there been a moderate house and senate.
Good point, Jay. In 2020 a moderate party could split the Democratic vote and give Trump another term. In the long run, of course, I’d hope that a moderate party would also win the support of old-fashioned Republicans who can no longer identify with their extreme-right party.
Rick, why does everyone say Trump is an extreme right politician? Ted Cruz is extreme right. James Inhofe is extreme right. Trump is a right-wing populism involves appeals to the “common man” and a complete distrust of immigration . It is primarily an us-versus-them appeal, where the “us” is broadly defined as the average man. That is his base. The extreme right would run to anyone else if the GOP closed primaries and only let republicans vote. Look at Iowa in 2016. Cruz and Rubio got 51% of the vote.Trump got 24%.
New Hampshire is basically an open primary. Just say which party and you get that ballot. Trump still only got 35%, so the more traditional and extreme “true” GOP voters split 65% of the vote.
Once he won NH others money began drying up as few wanted to fund candidates getting less than 25% of the vote. Then the real GOP voters were left with a GOP nominee that was not really a republican or not voting at all other than Libertarian.
If a moderate party would split the democratic vote – without approximately equally effecting the republican vote – then it is NOT a moderate party, it is a moderate democratic party.
It is near certain I am voting libertarian again.
It is near certain Trump will win in 2020.
Clarify what you think is extreme right about the republican party ?
Trump is a shift LEFT.
The Tea Party was a shift LEFT.
Is Trump seeking to lock up homosexuals ?
He is somewhat tepidly leading the charge for sentencing and prison reform.
Do you think that school choice is extreme right wing ?
Do you think that due process for the often minority males accused of sexual misconduct on campus is extreme right ?
Democrats used to be the party of the working class.
Republicans the party of the wealthy elites ?
What positions of the current GOP are “extreme-right” ?
If you are going to bandy about a label then you need to define it.
How can we tell what the “extreme-right” is ?
And what the “extreme-left” is ?
If you want to find common ground between the two tribes, the way to do this is through the use of ethical principles, because ethics is completely horizontal in nature. There already exists a definitive code of ethics in the world, that can be applied to all human problems – political, civil, diplomatic or otherwise – it is called the Talmud. It is already the basis for our justice system. Each position can be analyzed using this ethical code by already trained Talmudic scholars. If I was a politician or in a position to influence legislation, I would hire Talmud scholars to do the ethical analysis and help craft the talking points.
Sigh…..😔
There is no such thing as fairness
We have been over this repeated
There is a reason that we have law
That is because law is supposed to be clear
We strive to make it principled and moral
But even if wrong it is still clear.
We changge the law when it is wrong
Fairness is not defainable
It is not something that we have a shared understanding of
And as every parent has told their toddler many times
Life is not fair
Fairness is what tyrants appeal to
Hitlers arguments were about fairness to Germans
Fairness is rooted in misguided concepts of equality
And the ideology of equality has always leads to violence and ruin
“There is no such thing as fairness”
Only in your world would we not find fairness. And in a world of special interest would there not be fairness.
Fairness does not mean there are not those with more than others. Fairness only requires that what everyone has is treated in the same manner. Fairness only requires if you or I break the law, we get the same sentence if found guilty. Fairness only requires the lack of favoritism or special treatment.
So fairness is real. It just not exist in our current society. It does not exist due to special interest, idenity politics and other activities that divide us.
Define fairness in a way that a majority of us can agree on
Define it in a way that is clear enough to use for force against others
There is no difference between socialism and fetishiing fairness
They are two sides of the same coin
We are not equal
If you do not grasp that you ar e thorouhly blind to the world
Any attempt at n objective concept of fairness is impossible without actual equality
When one argues fairness one is arguing for the use of force for your particular view of how th world should be.
That is evil
Rick the middle is overrated
It is not a principle
The left is sometimes right
The righ is sometimes right
The middle is nearly always wrong
Though the world is not one dimensional quite often answers are not found in the left the right or the middle
Compromise is a tool not a value
Elecvating it to a value is a serious moral error
The middle is not a moral principle
It does not offer the truth about anything
Dave: So fairness is evil, the middle is overrated (that’s news to me), and we’re nearly always wrong, unlike the right and left? On the contrary, moderates will save us from the wanton excesses of the right and left. I think we’re essential because we seem to be the only ones who bother to examine both sides of an issue… the only ones who strive for balance… the only ones fit to check the excesses of the extremists on both sides without driving the country toward civil unrest.
We’re not simply sticklers for compromise, although good compromises can be valuable in breaking logjams. (Our Constitution was based on compromises.) I mentioned in my latest column that it’s even more important for moderates to balance the boat when extremists threaten to tip it over. Cutting taxes for the rich when our wealth gap is already the widest since the Gilded Age? They’re tipping the boat toward plutocracy… we moderates would tip it back to the middle. Leftist social justice warriors keep demonizing white people (especially white males) and mobilizing to stifle conservatives on college campuses. They’re tipping the boat toward Marxist class war; we moderates would tip it back to the middle.
As they say in New Jersey, “You got a problem wit dat?”
“So fairness is evil, ”
Define fairness in a way that 90% of us can agree on, and that some significant group will not be able to claim that they are being treated unfairly by your idea of unfairness.
You can not do it.
There is no such thing as FAIR. It is not evil, It does not exist.
But ARGUMENTS about fairness are ALWAYS arguments about why I am more entitled than you. So yes arguments about fairness are evil.
“the middle is overrated (that’s news to me),”
I have no idea how the middle is rated. I made specific claims, those claims are true.
“and we’re nearly always wrong”
I said that compromise is nearly always wrong. while the left or the right are each much more likely to be right than any compromise solution.
That should be obvious by inspection.
Pick an issue at random. It is near certain that whatever the issue, the best answer, the morally correct answer, the maximal utility answer will be close to one end of the spectrum.
i.e. on any given issue one of the extremes is closest to correct AND the middle is almost certainly wrong.
Lets take a hypothetical
Lets say we are trying to decide how many jews the nazi’s should execute.
One extreme wants no jews exterminated,
the other wants all jews exterminated.
The middle wants to compromise and only exterminate older or decrepit jews.
It should be absolutely obvious to you that only ONE side is RIGHT.
Any issue that has a linear effect,
And any issue that has a curve where the optimum is off center is likely to produce results where the middle is always wrong. While the extremes are each only wrong some of the time.
How many times do I have to say that Compromise is a TOOL, it is not a value.
Make it into a value and it is trivial to compel you to do evil.
Compromise is only a good thing when it actually makes things better.
It is just as likely to make things worse as better.
“On the contrary, moderates will save us from the wanton excesses of the right and left. I think we’re essential because we seem to be the only ones who bother to examine both sides of an issue… the only ones who strive for balance… the only ones fit to check the excesses of the extremists on both sides without driving the country toward civil unrest.”
First I think you and I have a significantly different defintion of moderate.
Or more accurately – I do not think you have actually though very deeply about what moderate really means – despite authoring a flagship blog celebrating it.
I am libertarian – and I have become more so over the years I have been here.
Libertarians are neither left nor right.
Nor are they inherently centrists either.
We reflect several very clear things.
First that all issues do not have only two sides.
Your idea of moderate – is centrist, is driven by this “middle” value.
By an inherent distaste for extremism.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Barry Goldwater
You can reframe that however you wish. You can dislike Goldwater.
But you can not – I hope argue that the statement is false.
Everything is NOT subject to compromise.
Sometimes the left is CORRECT – or more so. Generally on social issues they are correct – but for one thing. They are prepared to use force to “do the right thing” even where the use of force is immoral and unjustified.
But I think all of us would agree that in our perfect world there is no hate speach no predjudice no discrimination.
I 100% suppost most leftist ideals.
I have near zero percent support for their means’
Those on the right come in many flavors.
But the limited government conservatives, the supply side conservatives the rule of law conservatives are also correct nearly all the time – ON THOSE ISSUES.
Neither left nor right are correct on every issue.
Each are near 100% correct on some and near totally wrong on others.
Libertarians are at odds with those on the left on somethings and with those on the right on others.
Libertarians tend to favor conservatives about 60:40 – because progressives are more dangerous. And because modern progressives have gone batchit crazy.
But there is a difference between libertarians voting slightly more conservative, and their 100% agreeing with conservatives or 100% disagreeing with progressives.
Your moderation seeks to disagree with both the left an the right nearly all the time.
I do not think that is true – I do not even think it is what you beleive, but it is what you write.
I am telling you that if your answer is to split the baby all we have is lots of dead babies.
That the answer is NOT in the middle all the time, or even most of the time.
That my idea of “moderate” is someone who tries to figure out based on facts, logic and reason which side is more correct on EACH issue rather than knee jerk pretending that both sides are wrong – because we can label them extreme.
I am not asking that Moderate be defined as libertarian.
But I am strongly asserting that if it is not about figuring out what the correct answers are rather than asserting compromise as a principle rather than a tool – that moderate defined that way is both wrong and inherently evil.
But that is not how I would define moderate.
Yet, you and most others here seem to insist that extreme is synonmous with wrong, that the truth must always be in the middle.
That is no only wrong, it is MORE wrong than either the right or the left.
I am not arguing that moderate is synonymous with evil.
But that a specific form of moderate – the compromise as a value rather than tool form is evil.
I do not honestly think that you or most others here have seriously thought of that.
Not even though I have harped on it for years.
We are driving towards civil unrest.
But moderation as you define it will not prevent that.
The left is riling people up over grevance politics – and we have more than two centuries of evidence as to how badly that ends. Given where the left is today on those issues, the right is irrelevant we are headed towards violance. Because that is where grevance politics always leads.
There is lots wrong with the right. but the right is TODAY no threat to CAUSE a serious violent conflict. Though they are certain to be on the defending and winning side if there is one.
Trump – who is NOT the reflection of the majority of the right in this respect, is the epitomy of political incorrectness and of beligerant speach. That STYLE is not particularly conservative, That STYLE is provocative of the left – if the left actually needed provacation to call nearly everyone hateful harting haters.
Further Trump – his success and his style are a PRODUCT of the left.
Trump’s in your face political incorrectness is a response to the over the top political correctness of the left. and the force with which they try to impose it and the ever narrowing frame of acceptable discourse.
The left has pissed nearly everyone off with the hateful hating haters rant.
And Trump is their champion – even if he is often indelicate.
We should be tankful for Trump because he is a safety valve.
Without his rhetorical steam there would like be real violence.
Absent serious reinvention so long as the left continues following its current ideology
violence is inevitable.
Compromise is at best a delay tactic.
And a dangerous one.
WWII would have been far shorter and less bloody had the allies not waited until the invasion of poland or pearl harbor to oppose evil.
“We’re not simply sticklers for compromise, although good compromises can be valuable in breaking logjams. (Our Constitution was based on compromises.) ”
I am certainly glad this country came into existance.
The compromises of our founders can be credited for that.
But are you honestly arguing that the compromises over slavery – which is the underlying subject matter for all constitutional compromises, was inherently a good thing ?
I beleive 13,000 people died during the revolution.
Civil war casualties among soldiers along were nearly 1/2 million.
The underlying subject matter of the compormises in the constutition ultimately had to be resolved MORALLY and violently. Millions of blacks spent a lifetime in slavery because of those compromises.
So no I do not think that the compromises that resulted in our constitution were inherently good – or even close.
I think this is a good nation. I am a firm beleiver in american exceptionalism.
I am proud of this country. But I am NOT proud of everything it has done.
I am far MORE proud of the accomplishments of its people, than the actions of its government.
I can simultaneously think America is the greatest nation on earth and that we have done many many reprehensible things.
“I mentioned in my latest column that it’s even more important for moderates to balance the boat when extremists threaten to tip it over. ”
Was it a good thing that the boat was ballanced in 1776 or 1787 and compromises over slavery left the issue unresolved for another half century ?
Would it have been better to “tip the boat over in 1787” ?
Let me reiterate goldwater
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
There is little room to compromise on liberty.
There is little room to compromise on justice.
The real threat to both today comes from the left.
And history tells us repeatedly that as collectivist grievance driven politics thrives, things get vile and bloody – ALWAYS;
If there is going to be a fight over the principles of individual liberty and justice, here and now is better than later.
It the boat is going to capsize – let it be NOW.
My rhetoric regarding the threat of the left may appear extreme.
MOSTLY the left is not jailing people today over free speach.
Though we are having a great national debate at the moment where the left has sold persuasion to most of us as the same as force and as inherently evil.
That does not end well.
“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.”
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
We are at a time for choosing.
If your idea of moderate is to avoid conflict today, to seek temporary peace, then count me out.
No matter how small you think the threat of modern progressivism is, it will be worse if it is not thwarted.
So
No I do not stand for avoiding conflict at all costs.
No I do not stand for avoiding all extremism.
No I do not stand for “peace in our time” risking world war in the future.
Please learn something about this garbage fetish of income inequality.
While some of the assertions you claim are flat out lunatic false.
Income inequality for most of human existance has been far greater than today.
For most of human existance there has been just abject poverty and the 1% who lived orders of magnitude better than the rest and worse than everyone today in abject poverty.
Rising standard of living for ALL is incontrovertibly caused by the very things you want to reign in.
The entire income inequality debate is green envy as public policy – nothing else.
Rich poor – I do not care who you are – what is yours is yours.
Anything else is theft.
Sugar coating theft by calling it redistribution does not make it any less evil.
More importantly the real data tells us incontrovertably that redistribution ultimately makes the poor POORER
I do not give a rats as if Gates has 80T.
I care about ME, My Kids, and others who are not Gates.
This is the “rising income inequality you bemoan”
https://i.giphy.com/media/FfdLItzoVhKFi/giphy.webp
Watch the animated gif and tell me honestly that you think the income distribution in 1971 was preferable to today ?
If you can not say that – than why are we talking about this issue at all ?
Most everyone here wants to defend “fair” as some pinacle notion.
Our founders though each voters “fair” share of the burdern of government was exactly the same. tax rates were specified in exact dollars for each person.
The poor and the rich paid exactly the same amount.
They thought that was “fair”
After all government serves each of us.
If anything the poor depend more on government than the rich.
Subsequently “fair” became everyone paying the same percentage of their income.
Now we have this stupidity today diven by your noxious income inequality argument that the rich should pay a higher percentage of their income.
In fact the argument is ludicrously stupid as inarguably the lower that taxes on the rich have become the greater the share of the cost of government the rich have born.
We have the lowest tax rates for the rich that we have had since the start of the great depression. We also have the most top heavy funding of government by the rich as ever in US history.
Further the portion of the cost of government that has been born by the rich has increased every single time that taxes on the rich have decreased.
Just the facts.
To demonstrate the idiocy of the income inequality argument.
I will note that in any society anywhere ever corrent or future in which we are not all clones, and drones there will ALWAYS be some inherent disparity that can be amplified into a point of contention.
Todays “income inequality” argument is quite literally just a more polished form of the marxist argument.
Regardless, in any society that is not made of clones, I will ALWAYS be able to find something that I can elevate to a conflict using “fairness” argument.
It is not possible to have a society that does not have “unfairness” short of universal poverty.
Which matters more to you ?
Income inequality ?
Or rising standard of living particularly for those at the bottom ?
If I told you, that you can have high income inequality AND the income of the poor doubling every 40 years (that is about what is currently occuring) OR
near zero income inequality but it will take 100 years to double the income of the poor which would you choose ?
That should be a no brainer.
The fact we have this debate clearly means it is not.
That you are arguing feelings and “fairness” rather than facts, just exposes how dangerous the modern left is.
We have improved the rhetoric of the most reprehensible political system in the world such that “moderates” are being taken in.
A decade ago nearly everyone on the left was falling over themselves to claim that accusing democrats of being socialists was “unfair” and distortive.
Now myriads of high profile democrats are embracing the term socialism.
IF you are in great fear of plutocracy – you do not live in the real world.
If Trump is your evidence – why is he at war with GM and other plutocrats ?
As Ron has repeatedly noted – PPACA was a boon to insurance companies.
Get a clue, bigger government will ALWAYS serve big business. ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
There is only one means of reigning that in.
Disempower government.
Since 2016 Clinton Foundation donations have almost completely dried up.
So does that mean the rich and big business gave tot he clintons out of charity or out of what they could get for their money ?
I am not looking to indict the Clinton’s on this I am just pointing out that you can not prevent this so long as government has power.
Frankly the Clinton Foundation scheme is genius. Converting a charity into a political money vaccum and power dispensor. Brilliant.
Nothing alleged against Trump compares.
The plutocracy you fear will be brought into being by the very people and methods you chose to use to fight it.
In Fyodor Dostoevsky;s book the brothers karamazov there is a sequence called the grand inquisitor suite were christ returns and the church debates him and send him away because humans do not want christ. They want what the church offers.
Things are not always as they seem on the surface.
What appears good is not always good.
Socialism is tremendously appealing on paper. It reads as the most compassionate political system in existence.
In reality it is the most vile and bloody.
In LOTR Frodo offers the one right to Galadriel who is tempted, but realizes that even though she would defeat Sauron and evil she would in the process become evil of a different form. What we want to be good is often evil.
This is a very important reason that we can not trust our emotions – particularly when we are going to use force.
Many many things that are good when done as individuals are evil when done collectively by force.
Some of the most heinous acts in human history – even the holocaust were done by people who thought they were doing good.
I think Hitler thought he was doing good for Germany.
If you have two different things that you think are good, and trying to pursue them results in conflict. It is near certain that one is not good.
Our knowledge of the world is imperfect.
as a result we can not know enough to weed out all contradictions.
But it is still true that real contradictions do not exist.
When you think you have found one – there is an error in one of your premises.
Unless you beleive you actually have the answer to a problem
You should not be seeking to influence anyone
Left right or center
You should be listening
Even if you think you have the answer
You should be listening
Because the only means of testing our values and principles is to subject them to criticism
Division is resolved by seeking the truth
Not by seeking to end division
This country is divided more so than ever because our truths are farther apart than ever
The answer is not compromise – us political history is rife with vile compromises
Slavery stands out
No one sane thinks compromising with hitler would be a good idea
Compromise is again not a Value it is a tool
Make it into a value and we are headed to hell
It is wrong to silence anyione no matter how extreme you think they are
Extreme is. Not an insult
Often the answers lie at the extremes
When the left in this country was for individual rights
When it was demanding equal rights for the least of us
It was right
The error on the left is that it has adopted immoral means to good ends
The end to predjudice is a good thing. It is a wonderful aspiration
That objective is one of the greatness of the left
But equal rights and preferential treatment are not the same
Mlk had a dream that one day children would be judged not by the color of their kin but their character
The modern left wants us judge by the color of our skin
And by our sexual orientation
And by our gender
And by the dysphasia between our gender identity and biology
The radical feminist “vagina dialogs” is now discriminatory against women without vaginas
The extremists left and right should. It be judged by virtue of their extremity
But to the degree they offer the truth,
There is no principle
No evidence that truth has a particular logcation on the political spectrum
There is no tautology that tells us the truth is on the left
Or the right or the middle
We should not be looking for the middle
We should be looking and listening for the truth
The use of force is not nuanced
Politics change not be nuanced
Nuance is for the vast majority of our lives that does not involve force
And therefore does not involve government or politics
An appeal to nuance is an appeal to use force with half a justification
It is an assertion the instances we are free to use force against others are not narrowly constraint
It is the pretense that we are not using force when we are
Nuance is not for government or politics
When we speak about government about using force against others we must do so clearly
Without nuance
Nuance inherently means ambiguity an confusion
All fine in our private lives but impermissible where force sminvolved.
A major facet of the hysteria today is the tremendous instability on the left
Republicans have their factions and power struggles
But they are not in danger of fracture
It is possible that the trump moment reflects the
departure of neocons and the absorption of blue collar democrats
But I does not reflect a fatal fault line within th gop
Democrats on the other hand are in serious danger as a party
It is the base that has gone rogue socialist
Either the occasion-Cortez’s will pull enough of the country to the far left to hold power
Or they will split the party
Or the far left will retrench
Ere are not other options
It is my view that the current divisiveness is a reflection of the death throes of tube extreme left – but that we ar e in the early stages
To be clear the left is not dying because it’s is extreme
It is dying because it is wrong
It used to be left extremists who fought for free speech
Now the champions of free speech are Ben Shapiro and milo yanopollis
That most liberal of ideas has been abandoned by the left and has bent taken up by the right
That Alone should tell you that whatever it’s faults and they are many
The problem in the us today is not with the right but the left
Tha
Is there common ground here ?
Is there a compromise answer ?
Is the middle way the correct way ?
Should we be avoiding extremism and seeking nuance on this issue ?
Can we end this garbage that there is some metric of voter efficiency that dictates how districts should be determined
https://twitter.com/jeremycarl4/status/1066405823167967233?s=21
“voter efficiency that dictates how districts should be determined”
Isnt that what the debate on gerrymandering is all about? Looking at voter rolls and grouping them in ways to maximize one parties chances of carring the district? Seems like there should be a better way.
“seems like there should be a better way”
You nail the fundimental problem with “fairness”.
Define what you think the desired optimal outcome is, and it is easy to conceive of a “better way” to produce it,. But your desired outcome is not the same as that of others.
The current democratic argument that is prevailing in courts is “voter efficiency”.
According to that argument the makeup of a district and of congress and of the legislature should reflect the makeup of the population of that state.
That “sounds” fair. But those making the argument focus on only one attribute of the population – whether they are democrats or republicans.
Some of us are rural, some suburban, some urban.
Some of us are white some black, some asian.
Some of us are poor, some middle class some wealthy.
Some of us are farmers, some labor, some managment.
It is not possible to create a congress that perfectly reflects our distribution of each of these and many other attributes.
Fairness with regard to republican democrat divisions is inherently unfair with respect to the other attributes that reflect who we are.
Fair is the argument of tyrants seeking to claim their particular interest is more important than that of others.
Demands for fairness inherently mean making one or a few issues or attributes more important than others.
Demands for fairness are appeals to emotion, and they are effective because it is trivial to point out unfairness in the world. We are too diverse, and even nature is inherently unfair.
Put simply life is not fair and never will be.
To some extent the rule of law is about “fairness”. It is about elevating principles above attributes. It is about noting that we can never acheive “fairness” – it is unlikely that we can even significantly improve the unfairness of the world.
That does not preclude making our lives better.
Dave I understand what you say about fairness and voter districts. But I think Priscilla, Roby, Pat, Jay and I could set down and look at all 50 states and create districts that are much more conguient than most anything in states today. The rural residents would end up in much more rural districts. The surburban, surburban. The city, in the city. There probably would not be a large rural district with a 20 mile long 2 block wide strip going into a city and then fanning out into a 4 sq mile area to capture a group of voters favorable to those in the large rural area to insure a party captures that house seat.
But if we ask you for help, we would be debating fairness, common sense, force and any other issue that might come up instead of tackling the issue at hand.
It does not take a genius to block out districts with reletively straight lines grouping people by land area that captures people with more like demographics than gerrymandering to capture voter registration.
And looking back at the idea of districting did not occur until later in our history. One reason districting started was due to equal protection. Althoughbdifferent today, under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, if gerrymandering dilutes the votes of one party or the other, does that not mean my vote as a GOP member is not diluted if I have been included in a gerrymandered democrat district?
I am sure that you and any small group could come up with districts
but there would always be someone who could make an argument that they were not fair to some group. And that argument would be correct.
Fair is not acheivable.
I forget what the criteria that SCOTUS has determined are, but they are very limited.
I beleive it is something like compact, and reflecting natural borders.
My argument is NOT that we should acheive fairness.
It is that we should follow the constitution.
Districting and federal elections are the SOLE business of the state legislator, and congress.
Not governors, not state courts. The state constitution should not apply (except to state offices and elections). The only review should be by the federal courts, and the criteria should be the same very limited ones that the court adopted in the 80’s.
Absolutely some politicians may try to gerrymander districts.
But we will not be corrupting bi-partisan commissions, or the state courts, and I trust – probably unwisely, the supreme court to keep the federal courts in line.
My objective is to make the assessment of “fair” something done by the voters.
I would note that CONGRESS can make rules regarding districting, but those rules would apply to ALL states the same and would have to be constitutional.
Honestly I do not think gerrymandering is a big deal.
Best estimates are that nationwide the net effect is no greater than 4 seats.
It really can not be.
Further gerrymandering a larger majority is inherently at odds with another objective of even corrupt politicians – preserving incumbents. You can not do both.
The math for creating safe seats is exactly the opposite of creating more seats for your party.
I would further note that creating more seats for your party creates a huge risk of being complely blow away by a small wave election.
To maximize seats you want to put huge numbers from the other party in a small number of districts and then make most of the rest has small majorities for your party.
Well is you create lots of 2-4pt majority districts and you have a 5 pt voter swing, you lose ALL your seats.
gerrymandering for a larger majority is highly dangerous politically. If a party wants to do it, they should be allowed to.
I would further note that anymore the largest block of voters are independents.
That makes gerrymandering far more difficult.
I am not saying this is not a problem – though it is not nearly the problem it is made to be.
I am saying that all cures are worse than the problem
Confine corruption to politicians. Do not corrupt our courts.
And do not create legal political debates that do not have an answer.
There is no right answer to how to create districts.
Move the problem to the courts and we will fight over it forever.
And further corrupt the courts in the process.
Last comment since we will never agree. What I believe is something you would never accept.
I dont care if it is fair at all. I dont care if Joe at the diner bitches about his district or Susie at the hair salon complains about too many republicans in her district.
But I believe there are ONLY 2 criteria that should be used to determine districts. Population # 1 and very straight as possible block shaped districts by using streets, railroad tracks, natural borders like river (I know not straight but using common sense geography which I know you dont believe in common sense to base decisions).
Race, color, party affiliation, income level, housing types, elevation of the earth, number of trees, size of yards, number of birds and wildlife, number of cars registered or any other senseless criteria like voter registrations should not be used.
And nationally impacted number of seats by party has nothing to do with it. It is local when it comes to house representation. Just because the democrats have gerrymandered California to insure more democrats are elected and North Carolina has gerrymandered NC to insure more Republicans are elected only means both residents of California and NC have been improperly disadvantaged due to manipulation of districts based on voter registration information.
We agree on far more than you think.
You discarded “fair” as a criteria – excellent step.
So long as you hold onto it the problem can not be solved at all.
Any resolutiion devolves to competing groups of oppressed.
#1 – population – Number of people or number of citizens ?
Aside from that the constitution already determines that population is the first criteria.
Each congressmen today represents about 700K people.
#2 – I do not disagree, BUT
That is not a single criteria, and how do you plan on adjudicating it, measuring it ?
Those are separate questions.
There are inevitably some questions that have political impacts that courts are going to have to decide. But we need to keep those as few as possible.
I do not want courts piking between two maps of districts.
I can to some extent gerrymander a district within your criteria.
And I can construct a 2nd map that gerrymanders the opposite direction that meets your criteria.
Yes Dave noting is fair, anything can be manipulated. You could take anything that I defined under my person/geographic requirements and move a handful of people from one district to another. But moving district lines a few blocks one way or the other would not result in districts like:
NC old 12th “snake”
California 21st and 23rd “21st fan in 23rd”
Texas 33rd and 35th “snakes”
Maryland 3rd ” miles long, blocks wide shoreline”
Before the last redistricting in NC, Mell Watt represented the 12th NC district. How could the interest of people in Durham NC be the same as the interest of those in Charlotte NC when those two cities are 100 miles apart and only the interstate 85 was used to connect them in multiple places?
So even though perfect can not ge achieved, better can be accomplished.
And if someone offers me a Ford Escort or Ferrari, I think I would know the ” better” choice.
Had republicans in CA won numerous seats that were within a small percentage, there would be no claims CA is gerrymandered – atleast not serious ones.
I am not looking to defend CA, just note that quite often small changes in voting have drastic changes in a parties power.
Districting has existed since before 1787.
It has been an issue before there was a congress.
It was handled entirely at the sate level.
The courts did not get involved at all until I beleive 1980’s.
It is an inherently politicallly corrupting process, that the courts would be wise to stay out of.
We need to get past trying to think of courts as the means to solve political problems.
Doing so makes the courts more political.
We do not want that.
If you had not noticed I strongly favor structural solutions, and I do not give a damn about “fairness”.
Where possible for FEDERAL elections, I want FEDERAL rules that are the same state to state. I do not want disputes settled by courts. I want the structure to be such to minimize potential conflicts. That means federal rules that only citizens can vote in federal elections. federal rules requiring voter ID, federal rules for absentee voting, for how voting is done.
I would eliminate “early voting” and severaly reduce absentee ballots – it is always those where we have problems. If you can not vote on election day – then don’t vote.
I want paper ballots that are preserved so that third parties like the press can verify them after the fact. I want close elections to be determined by runnoffs not recounts.
The later involves courts and commissions and is inherently politically corrupt.
Recounts are less politically manipulable.
You will note I am NOT making arguments about “fairness”:.
I am seeking to minimize the portions of government that are subject to political corruption and define parameters that are clear. It is unimportant whether someone thinks they are fair.
We now here idiots fromt he left challenging the way senators are allocated and the electoral college and “unfair”.
Everything is unfair to someone
Any better way that you come up with I will be able to demonstrate is flawed, as well as unfair to some.
That BTW is not limited to redistricting. It is going to be true of anything that we do through government.
That is inherent to top down solutions to any problem.
It is a significant factor in restricting the application by force of top down solutions.
There are problems that are critical enough that we can tolerate that unfairness.
Those are problems where we can justify the use of force.
This same problem does not exist outside of government because there is no force involved, because everyone is not inherently going in the same direction.
Some employers may be unfair to women, some to gays, some to other minorities.
Others may deliberately strive to fairness with respect to one or many of these attributes.
Others will be completely blind to differences.
Regardless the result will NOT be a one size fits all solution.
Things will be unfair, they will even be more unfair to some than others.
But they will rarely be uniformly unfair in one way.
Everything we debate here, ultimately devolves to imposed systemic top down vs. bottom up solutions, between trusting government and trusting people.
Each of us beleives we are far better at solving other peoples problems than we actually are at solving our own.
“Any better way that you come up with I will be able to demonstrate is flawed, as well as unfair to some.”
Yep, and we both could find something flawed with a Rowles Royce or Ferrari, but that does nit mean they are not better than a Ford Escort or Chevy Cruze.
This is not about the “flaws” of a Rolls or Ferarri.
Nor is it about private choices.
This is about the core flaw in your concept of fairness, and the core flaw with modern leftism.
It devolves into a competition for special preference in an arena where force will be used.
Whose vote should we favor most – the gay male black person ? Or the trans female latino ?
This is not about finding some technical flaw in your arrangement.
The primacy of “fairness” means I will ALWAYS be able to find some legitimately agreived oppressed person of some kind with any scheme that you concoct.
We have a version of this problem with immigration – the moment you have to choose – you will always end up saying no to someone arguably desrving.
There is no objective means to make such choices.
Any criteria is subjective.
This is not about ferraries and Rolls’s it is about men and women, left and right, gay and straight and permutations between, rural and urban.
And to be clear – a ferrarri is not Objectively better than a ford escort.
It is better at certain very specific things.
The escort is better at others.
Whether a ferrarri is better than an escort depends on the weighted values you place on all the attributes of both.
Those weighted values are INDIVIDUAL.
You are free to have your own unique set – and to apply them – to yourself.
You are not free to impose them on others by force.
To be clear I do not have a problem with ca or mds districts nor th outcome of the election in those states
I do hav a problem with ththe hypocracy that what is acceptable in ca or md is not where it might lease to less democrats
Regardless this is simple either you believe that ca and md redistributing is evil
Or you beleive the courts were wrong to intervene in states where redistributing favored republicans
I am for keeping our courts out of politics
I doubt many would disagree that politics is caustic and corrupt
We do not want that polluting our courts
A very wise scotuS decision on gerrymandering would be to take the constitution as it says
Federal elections are the business of congress and state legislatures
Not state courts
Not bipartisan commissions not state governors
The results will not be good
But they will be better than if the courts get involved
It will never happen in the near future, but the voting rights law was created by congress to outlaw voter discrimination based on race or color. Maybe its time for congress to further define discrimination as a voter minority, meaning voter registration can not be used to define districts.For instance, why is Bakersfield and Kern carved out of the 23rd district and placed in the 21st, totally surrounded by the 23rd except for the sliver of land connenting it to the 21st? Same reason NC has gerrymandered districts, but for the opposite reason.
You have to get past identifying things you do not like and demanding they get fixed.
You said “seems like there has to be a better way”.
There is always a way that will better suit the wants of one aggrieved party.
There is not a away that will perfectly or even better resolve everyone who has a grievance or everyone who would have a grievance as a result of some new arrangement.
There is no means to construct congressional districts that will perfectly balance ever single attribute that is meaningful to the redistricting process.
You cited the voting rights act.
That dictated minority majority districts.
That sounds fair to minorities.
But any arrangement that is fair to one groups is not fair to another.
Aren’t farmers entitled to “fair” representation even though they are a minority ?
What about women ?
What about people with a college education ? The middle class ? The poor ?
You will never manage to balance a congressional district to reflect every single attribute that when ignored results in unfair representation.
What you will do is destroy the courts and the law and the social contract trying.
No I based my comment on a SCOTUS case , Wesberry v Sanders, 1964 where the court held that Georgia districts were unconstitutional since they were designed to put more people in rural districts and reduce the number of city districts. They held that one mans vote in one district became different than another mans vote in another district due to the differences in population. They did this to create more “rural districts of “GOP thinking” So in my comment concerning gerrymandering districts to make more voters of kind in each district and reduce the number of districts of the opposing party, I said “Maybe its time for congress to further define discrimination as a voter minority, meaning voter registration can not be used to define districts.” Note I was not quoting any law, just making the comment it might be time for a change.
In an earlier comment I stated “looking back at the idea of districting did not occur until later in our history. One reason districting started was due to equal protection. Although different today, under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, if gerrymandering dilutes the votes of one party or the other, does that not mean my vote as a GOP member is not diluted if I have been included in a gerrymandered democrat district?” Note I said this is different today, but asked if they current impact of voters was not somewhat the same.
The voting rights act only covered Race or color. Gerrymandering is diluting the votes of the minority party within those districts. So I said it might be time for congress, in doing their required responsibility along with the states, to preclude party affiliation from being used to configure districts.
Yes nothing will make districting perfect, but when flaws are found, then should not congress do its job to reduce the number of flaws in any law?
I do not understand your argument.
I think that if SCOTUS were wise it would stay out of redistricting – and keep the federal courts out of it. It is a dangerous rathole that will have no good outcome for anyone.
Congress would be constitutionally free to define things like discrimination with reference to voting. But that is an incredibly stupid thing to do to.
While I do think that Congress should define uniform rules for all federal elections.
And I am even prepared to have congress define uniform rules for creating congressional districts. But they should stay as far as possible from even discussing discrimination of any form. That too is a dangerous rathole that ends well for no one.
Every form of redistricting dilutes the votes of some and amplifies the votes of others.
There is absolutely positively no objective means to redistrict and no means to not advantage some and disadvantage others.
This returns to the nonsense of “fair”.
Can you be “fair” to republicans, democrats, blacks, women, farmers, suburbanites, urbanites, ….. ?
There is absolutely no redistricting scheme that will not disadvantage some and advantage others.
“There is absolutely positively no objective means to redistrict and no means to not advantage some and disadvantage others.”
But you keep missing my point and are only honed in on “fair”. I said before “fair” is not what I would like to see happen.
What I want to see happen is a form of the congressional districts that were present back prior to probably 1970 That is before analytics, computers and mega data took over the districting and people did not have all the data they have now to manipulate borders of congressional districts. That is when you found the most “like” group of individuals within a district and when a representative went to congress to “represent the interest of his district”, he represented the vast majority since many had the same “interest”.
Then came the decision that black voters could not be disadvantaged. If you took a old way of dividing up districts, black voters were split between districts, so their vote was being “diluted” in many instances, especially in the south where a much higher percentage of voters were republican. So a law came about where black voters should have their own district and state began looking at population and race to define districts. Out came the NC 12th that snakes 100 miles up interstate 85 and others like the two snake districts in Texas. Well that gave parties the idea if you could use that data to form illogical borders to create minority districts, why not use it to favor your own party. WOO HOO gerrymandering on steroids!
For every action, there is a reaction. Laws dictating minority districts helped fuel gerrymandering. So now the parties are bitching because they are being disadvantaged, depending if you are a red state or a blue state.
So my suggestion is not based on fair, as I have said. It is based on (1) what the constitution and laws require (a certain number of reps per population) and (2) one additional criterial, more geometric designs in district mapping preclude snakes, Goofies, Mickeys, Chinese fans, shorelines and other nondescript districts from being created.
It aint perfect, but it sure beats what we have today when you look at the ridiculous maps. How someone can say they are represented by someone raised in a city and a businessman in a town 100 miles away down the interstate when the representative in a district close to your house lives across the street is down right idiotic.
Gerymandering is a more than a century old term.
Technology and tools do not actually change right and wrong, Morality, liberty.
Sometimes they show us where we are wrong.
But the past was never as good as it appears in the rear view mirror.
Regardless, it is not for courts to make the rules.
Their role is to verify they do not conflict with the existing constitution.
If you want your rules – pass a federal law.
You do not seem to grasp – it is not just that it can not be done perfectly.
It is that there is not even such a thing as improving its flaws.
The very concept of a flaw in this context is highly subjective.
Which is exactly what is wrong with “fairness”.
When you identify some “flaw” and attempt to fix it, you will inherently you will inherently create more problems that others will identify as “flaws”
While it is not implausible that some refinement is possible,
To a huge extent all changes to the methodology for creating districts are just efforts at picking different winners and losers.
There is no objectively right set of winners and losers.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-when-it-comes-to-undermining-faith-in-democracy-another-low-point
I do not have a problem with being skeptical about our election process
My problem is that democrats oppose those measures that would improve our faith in elections
The law kemp administered sound more than reasonable to me
In fact many of Georgia’s voting provisions sound excellent to me
If you can not get 50% of the vote we should not be having myriads of recounts and court battles we should have a runoff
If you can not vote at least once in 7 years it is reasonable to remove you from the rolls
You are likely dead or moved
In ca we hav prosecutions of voter fraud – paying for signatures on referenda and other candidate qualification pettions
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-border-crossing-20181125-story.html
Until the laws are changed, let them in! Close all other port of entries, increase staffing in San Ysidro to handle the thousands entering and process them for entry as quickky as possible. Women and children first, the men based on age. Do as many checks on them as possible, but process them quickly. I placed them in this order as those younger males are the ones that may gave ties to cartels.
The president can not make law. He has to defend laws on the books.The laws on the books favor aliens seeking asylum. Until congress addresses this issue, then stop using these people as political pawns.
And I use San Ysidro as port of entry, as California is a sanctuary state and much more welcoming than Arizona or Texas.
A totally reasonable assessment, Ron.
But we have President Unreasonable making decisions.
And with the Mueller investigation likely to start dropping F-Bombs on his ass soon, he’ll keep migrants in the headlines as much as possible: the longer he keeps them stranded at the border the more desperate they’ll become and likely swarm the fences.
Jay;
What is it that you think is coming from Mueller ?
Maybe, just maybe Mueller has run the only investigation in DC history that does not leak like a seive.
BUT even if that is so – the press accross the world have been digging into Trump like pigs for Truffles. Thus far the only things that have come out that have held up are more demonstrations of the malfeasance of the investigation.
If there was anything their it would likely have been found by the press or leaked by someone on millers team.
Todate nearly all the “leaks” have proved false.
Why do you think the default is to “let them in” ?
Further approx. 98% of them are going to be sent away.
We are not going to let them in.
Why are you in a hurry ?
If things take a long time and they decide to return home on their own, rather than roll dice heavily loaded agains them – isn’t that a good thing ?
Why is their plea more compelling because they are a mile away rather than 1000 miles away ?
I will have no problem finding a more deserving person than ANY of those in the caravans elsewhere in the world.
Give me a rational reason for “let them in” ?
No the law on the books does NOT favor aliens seeking asylum – or better put, it favors them over aliens seeking economic gain.
The law does NOT create a right to be here.
Such right does not exist.
These people are political pawns – they have made themselves that.
They have chosen to be.
I have a great deal of sympathy for them.
But no more than people from india, or china, or haiti, or nigeria that also want to seek asylum.
These people are not special because they are 1 mile away from our border.
They have no more or less rights than when they started off in honduras.
A year or so ago, my daughter spent the summer in South Africa. She was on a teaching internship, and she taught in schools that served some of the most desperately poor townships in Johannesburg. One of the schools was for kids that had been orphaned by AIDS, an epidemic that still rages in Africa. The level of poverty she saw was staggering. Many of the kids (and some of the South African teachers) lived in shipping containers, without plumbing. Most received their only meals at school. Every child that she got to know expressed the dream of one day getting to America. Some of the children asked her if she would adopt them, so that they could come and live in the US (she was warned that this would happen, but it was still heartbreaking for her to say no).
Obviously, since there is no land path from South Africa to the US, there are no caravans of desperate migrants from SA, walking and/or riding to America, with the intention of becoming residents of what they consider the greatest nation on earth. Since left-wing open border activists cannot fund such a caravan, they focus on Latin America.
But those activists don’t care any more for the Latino migrants that they use to further their anti-American agenda than they do for the Africans that they ignore. Migrants are simply tools of a political agenda. The fact that there are drug dealers, violent criminals and human traffickers in the mix makes no difference. The only goal is to overwhelm the US with illegal migrants…what they do, or what happens to them after they get here is of no consequence to the powers that financed their journey.
And if Africans could walk all the way to the US, and a caravan of 3,000 of them survived to reach the US border, what would your daughter suggest be done with them?
Jay
I have zero problems with open borders
But I think you are being dishonest if you claim the same
If you allow hundreds of thousands of very low skill people into the us and maintain our laws as they are there are only three possibilities
They starve here
They are paid illegally to work for the actual value they are able to produce which is far below us minimum wages
They survive on charity and public assistance
There is no magic wand that will introduce a better choice
Except actual freedom
And you are not prepared for that
Real freedom is the freedom to earn whatever you can
Even if that is less that mw
Freedom to succeed requires freedom to fail
They are inseparable and many will
Throughout the world we actually know that deep social safety nets slow rising standard of living
The freedom of one to succeed does not exist without the freedom of others to fail
Allowing hundreds of thousands of low skill people into the us absolutely will reduce the standard of living of the us working class
Today whether it is minimum wages or regulations or our social safety net
We prop up those near the bottom
We disincentivize their success
If you flip a burger today
You do a job that has changed little in 50 years
You are no more productive than your peer 50 years ago
If your inflation adjusted wages is higher
Then you are stealing for someone
I have zero problems with letting 100’s of thousands of no skill people in
I have a problem watching employers get prosecuted for hiring them illegally for what they are worth because they can not be legally paid what they are worth and they can not increase their worth without getting started
I have a problem watching 5hem fail
Or watching 5hem fill our jails
Or watching them move to our public assistance
I have no problem letting them in
And giving the a real chance to succeed
And that only occurs when they have a chance to fail
How about you
Do you really want to allow these people in ?
There are many reasons these people are called illegals
Not just because they crossed a line in the sand illegally
But because they can not exist legally in the us
Your laws require them to remain criminals to survive
Pay attention:
I’ve stated this NUMEROUS times:
I’m in favor of TIGHTER immigration access, not looser admittance, notably from Spanish speaking nations. I’ve stated my reasons for this before, and don’t have time to go over it again.
I don’t want a flood of unskilled migrants entering the US.
I agree with your assessment of the negative impact it would have on US low wage workers.
But we do need a continuing supply of unskilled labor (ask Trump’s hotel and golf course management, who keeping requesting more of them to clean rooms and mow lawns).
Balance is the key. And new policies to address future large scale migrations from South America, which will continue as populations of desperate people increase there.
But I don’t want to see migrants, like those in the caravan debased.
I don’t want to see more kids stolen from their parents, turned into orphans of the state-
The law now assures those in the caravan amnesty hearings. Those who qualify should be granted amnesty; those who don’t, deported. We should marshal the resources to do that QUICKLY! instead of wasting resources bivouacing the Military along the border, Congress should send hoards of bureaucrats to border states to speed up the process.
No jay you have not taken a credible position on immigration
Vague remarks and massive emoting are not taking a position
They are not argument for a position
Positions have rules
An understanding that we try to anticipate problems but when they occur we follow the rule until we
Roperly change them
A flood of conflicting emotions is not an argument
Some vague statements that are contradicted by nearly every post you make
Balance is another of those typed meaningless words like fairness
We govern by rules
Whatever value you think there is in balance it gets applied before as the rules are made
To the extent balance has any meaning at all it is as the rules are being made not after
After is law
We enforce law as written or we change it
There is no balance
Next balance out of thin air is nothing
Balance what against what and how ?
Most everything in your post could be prefaced by “I feel”
Because that is all it is
Make an actual argument
Do not tell me how you feel things should be
Facts logic reason
In this post you barely touch on the tiniest bits
You assert we need a large pool of low skilled labor
That I actually false
We want that
We can use that
But we can do without it
The results will be different
But an actual argument requires confronting the different results and explaining why you think one is better than the other
Facts logic reason
Get a clue
Telling peop,e who have drug their assess 1000 miles NO is debasing
There is no arrangement you can possibly come up with that will not have winners and losers
That will not have people that you will have sympathy for lose
If you care about debasing the people in the caravans
Then you are for open borders
Because anything else will result in somebody get it Int debased
Besides if all these things matter to you
Where were you when Obama was doing them
Child separation
Tear gas
Using the military at the border
Using the guard
…..
All things that happened under Obama too
Where was your outrage and spittle then ?
If you do not want to lose your kids
Stay home
If you do not want to loos desparate and debasedThen do not act desparate and debased
The entire claim of these people rests on the claim that they are leaving a hell far worse than our borders
If that is not true
This is an economic choice and one of self debasement
It is not relevant that you agzree with my assessment
What matters is that any decision will have losers
Even if there were a best decision someone will be screwed
You miss this in everything
The world is not perfect
It will never be
But it is good
Good does not mean no families are separated
It does not means that there are no mass hooting
Or that people do not love their jobs or …
Every bad thing does not have sometome to blame
And even I those that do often are still the lessor evil
You are demanding th impossible
That trump meet your ur personal standard F perfection
One that has s not even constant or defined
On that never has anything go wrong
Well, I think that, like all rational people she understands that, just as she could not possibly adopt the dozens of beautiful children who asked her to become their guardian and bring them home with her, nor can a sovereign nation, responsible for the welfare of its own citizens, possibly take in all of the needy people from around the globe ~ or even from the Western Hemisphere.
So, she would probably suggest that the US immigration system be updated and reformed so that those South Africans most deserving have the opportunity to become American residents and citizens, and that any who might have a legitimate claim to political or religious persecution be granted sanctuary in our nation.
What she would not suggest is that we allow people who show no respect for American sovereignty or for American laws to overrun our borders and claim the right to those benefits that are lawfully due to American citizens an/or legal residents.
Now, if you’re talking about a finite number…say, a group of 3,000 only, that could be provided with aid and comfort by charitable Americans, I believe that she would say to take them in, help them, and then have them go through the legal process if they wanted to stay.
But waves upon waves of tens of thousands of South Africans, demanding to be given medical care, education, jobs, and other benefits, as their right, because they were able to illegally breach American borders?
That would be like saying that any of her students who were able to break into her house, would have the right to be her adopted children, and be fed, clothed and cared for by her, regardless of whether she had the emotional will or the financial ability to do so.
The obligation to care for those in need is individual not collective
It is not an obligation of government
Accepting it f’s up government
There is no compelling reason the use can not live up to the new colossus
But it can not both take oN a duty to care for the needy AND to accept all comers
The sovereignty argument is circular
I do not honestly beleive the us has the right to exclude others
But we do not have an obligation to meet their needs either
Get rid of th social safety net and labor regulations and you can have open borders
Checking only for criminals send disease
Many here attack trumps use of invasion
Correctly
The caravan is on.y an invasion if they threaten to take from us something that is ours
Our property
Or the income we make
If the can receive a government benefit the. They are invading
If the can not they are not
And or sovereignty is not actually threatened
Further the argument
If you want in you will obey our laws which will prohibit you from getting in is circular
I disagree with open borders, Dave, because I believe that the open borders argument is theoretical, and cannot work in practice. It’s like saying “love is all you need.” Well, actually, no. Love is great, but it’s not all you need. Air, food, water – are kinda important too.
Of course the caravan is an invasion, for all of the reasons that you state, but also because it is a horde of people behaving unlawfully, without respect for the sovereign nation-state that America is.
That sovereignty exists because it has been and still is the will of the American people that the United States is a sovereign nation. Until that changes, we are not an open borders union.
“I disagree with open borders, Dave, because I believe that the open borders argument is theoretical, and cannot work in practice.”
It has worked for most of human history.
It is only in the modern era that the slightest semblance of border security – with respect to immigration has been even possible.
No it is not like saying “love is all you need”.
It is however saying – freedom comes at a price – zero entitlements.
But given that there are myriads of other reasons that government entitlements are bad that is a small price.
I do agree however that the social safetynet as it is and open borders are NOT compatible,
The “lawful” argument is and always has been dubious.
You can not logically make a person not subject to our laws, essentially retroactively subject to our laws because they are about to step over a line.
Until they are in the US we have no legitimate jurisdiction.
Basically you have a chicken egg problem.
I am not going to dwell on this – except to note that you can hold whatever view you want on crossing outside of checkpoints. But it is pretense to decide that those who did cross outside of checkpoints are criminals.
Criminal intent is NOT the intent to do the thing defined as the crime.
It is the intent to do wrong.
Clinton as an example is guilty and criminally culpable for violating 18cfr793 – and Comey’s claim that she did not have the requisite intent is WRONG.
She intentionally tried to remove control of her records from the government.
That is sufficient intent to make her violation of 18cfr793 a crime.
We know that was her intent – because she emailed others asking for advice on how to accomplish that.
Drug smugglers intend to do something wrong, Their crossing the border can be truly illegal.
I want to address intent a bit further.
At law, criminal intent is not like mind reading, it is also not the same as motive.
It is intentionally doing wrong – not necescarily crime.
There are very few “strict liability” crimes – crimes of negligence and crimes that explicitly do not require intent – like statutory rape.
In state law in most states intent is an absolute requirement of nearly all crimes.
The federal law as a common law principle – not statutory law, used to require intent.
But recent court decisions have essentially said that intent is not required for any federal crime unless the statute explicitly requires it.
If you accidentally kill a bald eagle – it is a crime. It does nto matter that it was purely accidental.
During the Obama administration both Obama and Senate Republicans wanted to explicitly change the law to add a default intent requirement to all federal law where nothing is specified.
That BTW is another reason Comey’s exhoerantion of Clinton was lawless.
18cfr793(f) explicityly does not require intent.
Currently all federal laws by default do NOT require intent – that is a bad thing.
This is also relevant to the Papadoulis plea. Papadoulis did not intentionally mislead Mueller.
The actual standard for federal crim-in-falsi is higher – it requires more than an intent to deceive. It requires success in deceiving.
That is why Flynn can not be a prosecutable false statement.
The reason for this is so that the FBI can not entrap you – as Corsi and Stone are currently claiming.
What assorted prosecutors and pundits keep calling a “perjury trap” has a different legal name. It is called entrapment, and it is itself illegal.
The government can not push cajole or otherwise manipulate someone into committing a crime.
Lying to the police is stupid – but it is not a crime.
Lying to a federal agent is.
BUT the requirements of the crime dictate that the misrepresentation must interfere with the investigation. That means that anytime a federal agent asks a question they know the answer too, That you can say whatever you want and it is not making a false statement.
A federally criminal false statement requires reliance by the government on the statement.
The claim regarding Cohen and his senate testimony MIGHT be perjury IF the facts Mueller alleges are proveable – which I am extremely dubious of.
It is not perjury to have a difference of oppinion as to what something means, where meaning is not clear.
It would also not be perjury to say there were no negotiations after XX/XX/XX if there were email and phone communications.
Communications means much more than negotiation.
Negotiation requires bidirectional efforts to reach an agreement.
Finally perjury can not be deminimus.
Lets say Cohen deliberately mislead the senate regarding this Moscow Trump tower.
In the context of senate testimony to be perjury Those contacts would have to revolve arround some other conduct that was actually criminal.
Saying Benghazi was a spontaneous uprising is an attempt to mask the unpreparedness of the administration, during an election, to a terrorist attack.
The lie is covering up a substantive truth.
Unless building a Trump tower in Moscow was wrong, Cohen lying to the senate about it might be stupid, but it is not perjury.
The problem with open borders is political not theoretical.
So long as it is not politically possible – the majority do not want them and the left does not grasp the implications of working open borders, more detailed discussion of them is accademic.
But I am blunt with those on the left – “show me”!
Because open borders are not possible with many other things the left demands.
I am prepared for open borders and all that comes with them.
I do not have much tolerance for those who want open borders, but are unwilling to even ponder that open borders has unavoidable consequences.
We get alot of that – more from the left that right but still this garbage of favoring some policy because of its benefits but pretending it has no costs.
That law can deliver us only part of the natural consequences.
Which brings me to the next thing that you, I and ron seem to be in agreement on.
The rule of law means many things.
It does not mean rule by anything that can be made law.
But it DOES mean that whatever the law is, it is the same for all,
That if we are going to have law we are going to follow it – that is not optional.
That we do not ignore law because it feels wrong.
That when we do not like the law as it is we work to change it not pretend that it does not exist.
“But it DOES mean that whatever the law is, it is the same for all,
That if we are going to have law we are going to follow it – that is not optional.”
And Dave, that is where I find myself very conflicted. Where I have argued that immigration laws have to be followed or ignore them completely (let them all in), I am on the other side of the fence when it comes to cannabis laws. I find myself siding with states who have passed laws allowing the use of those products, while they are still illegal federally.
But i also do not see anything in the constitution that specifically gives the federal government control of drugs, just as it does not have control of alcohol with repeal of prohibition.
I found this in an article from The Hill that describes my thinking better than I can myself. “When the Constitution was adopted, the phrase ‘regulate commerce’ was well-understood. It referred to laws governing mercantile trade and certain associated matters, such as tariff barriers, commercial finance, navigation, and marine insurance. It did not include other aspects of the economy. In fact, many of the founders are on record as specifically assuring the public that Congress would have no jurisdiction over agriculture, manufacturing, land use, or (according to Chief Justice Marshall) ‘health laws of every description.’
Growing marijuana is, of course, a species of agriculture. Processing is manufacturing. The ban on personal consumption is a health regulation. The Constitution places control over all those activities squarely within the state, not the federal, sphere.”
So I am still conflicted in my support for states rights as it addresses cannabis, medical or whatever, but due to the specific nature of immigration being addressed in the constitution and federal law is provided specifically by the constitution, I do find myself picking laws that should be followed in some instances.
And I base my thinking on cannabis more on the side of medical uses, such as seizure and pain control, and not so much on recreational use, even though it is not much different than drinking.
If Government passes a law,
GOVERNMENT must enforce it.
Government should never pass a law with the intention of ignoring it.
that is stupid and essentialy lawless.
It is also important because when a law is being crafted, legislators should be contemplating the effects of enforcing it. The costs, the response of people.
They should be thinking – what is people do not obey.
We should get passed this nonsense that passing a law automatically results in the operation of the world changing.
But PEOPLE are not the same as government.
I have no expectation that you will obey bad law.
There is even a duty to disobey some laws.
But it is an INDIVIDUAL duty, not one of government, not one of society.
These two things seem in conflict but they are not.
It is the rigid enforcement of bad laws and the opposition that generates that drives us to eliminate them.
Bad laws that are passed and ignored by government remain a hidden burden on us all. A trap that could spring on us at any time.
Individuals have to on their own determine how to deal with bad laws.
Oppose them through civil disobediance and/or by fighting to have them changed or repealed.
Or we are even free as individuals to tolerate bad laws.
With respect to cannibus.
I would entirely eliminate nearly all drug laws.
Not just MJ and herion, but everything antibiotics, …..
If you lie about what you sell – that is fraud. Fraud is a crime, We do not need massive regulation to combat fraud which is already illegal, and a violation of contracts and a tort.
If you harm someone with something you sell, that is a tort, a breach of contract and possibly a crime too. Again that is based on relatively general laws that are hundreds of years old.
Businesess particularly big businesses that sell things seek to distinguish their product from others.
Getting regulations that restrict what can be sold is one way to accomplish that.
So are things like UL or GoodHousekeeping approvals or Board Certifications.
So is branding.
Most everyone knows that the best hamburgers at any town are NOT fast food.
But we all know when we go into McD’s exactly what we are going to get.
That is what branding means.
All these and many others are substitutes for laws and regulations.
That are far more dynamic and work much better.
All our drug laws are bad for much the same reasons.
The federal government had to pass a constitutional amendment to impliment prohibition – because the courts determined that the federal regulation of alcohol – beyond taxing was outside their constitutional authority.
Cannabis, Heroin and tylenol are no different from alcohol in that regard.
The commerce clause in the constitution – often refered to as the “dormant commerce clause” was initially crafted to BAR states from regulating interstate commerce.
The history of the clause makes it clear that congress never intended to empower the federal government to regulate commerce. They gave that power to the federal government to take it from the states.
The legitimate purpose of the law is not to prevent people from behaving stupidly.
That is not possible.
It is to punish the use of force against others.
If you do not like some uses of MJ or heroin – educate people. Persuade them not to act stupid.
My children are adopted
My son is from South Korea
My daughter is from China
We traveled to China to adopt her in 1998
Her orphanage was so bad no one was allowed to visit it
We saw pictures much later that had been taken by some subterfuge
At that time conditions were improving
Still many of the kids left in Chinese orphanages were placed in dying rooms
There were too many to take care of and the orphanages were too poor
And 1998 was 20 years after mao died
Things had been improving rapidly for 20 years
In 1974 China was the poorest country in the world
It’s standard of living had changed zero sine 1900
It was much poorer than Africa
In the 1950s 50 million died of starvation
When mao died China was importing food
Today they are the worlds 2nd largest exporter of food
The us is first
We know what improved China
Increased economic freedom
And even those improvements leave it far behind the us in freedom
And standard of living
The same thing has occurred in India but it started two decades later
But the results are the same
A metioric rise from near total poverty resulting from and tracking increased freedom
China’s rate of improvement has slowed
Because their improvement of individual freedom has stalled
China and India are not the only place this has occurred
Through Asia Malaysia Thailand even Vietnam throughout South America
And even Mexico
Wherever freedom has increased standard of living has increased
The level of standard of living very closely matching the level of freedom
Where freedom is unchanged standard of living is unchanged
Much of Central America Cuba Haifa most of Africa much of the Mideast
Between governments and charity $1t has been invested in Africa over the past 50 years
With absolutely zero benefit
Charity foreign aide free stuff does not help
Freedom alone improves standard of living
This is true of countries in abject poverty
It is also true of those countries at the top
Rising stand of living maps nearly exactly to freedom
Even in Europe japan. And the us
In the us and other advanced countries when when reduce freedom when we pass more laws when government grows our rate of improvement slows
Much of Africa has the worst poverty in the world today
But 5hat was not true in 1965
China was worse
India was close
I proposed letting them in because few can agree on anything concerning immigration. It is all political. Republicans see latinos as a threat to their continued existance as a viable party. Somewhat like a national California Republican type existance. Democrats see Latinos as their road to domination of the federal government, again like California. Far left democrats see a socialist America in 50 years if they stay the course.
One foot policy? Did not work. Many ignored court date.
Lock them up. Doesnt work, children separated from parents
Lock them up with kids? Damn, think of the pictures Huff Post, MSNBC CNN and Jay could find on Twitter to attack Trump and his policies.
Catch them and deport. Doesnt work in many cases due to family ties.
So I think something is about to blow up on our southern California border. I would not be surprised if a large group find a way to “charge” the border, women and children in front and a few of them will die.Then the left will have a hay day will negative news, nothing positive comes out, no one will blame democrats for refusing to negotiate a border wall since they will see this as a win win in 2020.
So when they are going to get in one way or the other since CONGRESS, not Trump refuses to do thier job, I say let them into California, a welcoming sanctuary state.
Maybe that would work. Trump could build a wall around California, and let it secede! (I’m kidding, Jay)
I do not think we are close to civil war
But the divisions in this country are in many instances fundamental
We are either going to eventually fracture
One side is going t capitulate
Or we are going to find a way to each do as we wish but not at the national level
Hey, Jay, I am sorry if I did not acknowledge your opinions on illegal immigration. As you know, I only stop by here once in a while now, and I don’t read every comment…just kind of skim the latest ones, and respond, if I have something to say.
So, I think that the vast majority of Americans want and need immigration reform. And almost no one, no decent person anyway, wants to separate families. Family separation becomes temporarily necessary in the case of possible lawlessness and abuse (and this applies to American citizens as well as migrants) and you guys have probably discussed that at length also, so I likely have nothing new to add.
My concern is that the migrant crisis is now worldwide, and it is supported by many powerful people who care ZERO about you or me, or any immigrant, legal or illegal, who consider child traffickers to be effective tools of an agenda, and who effectively want to end the nation-state system.
It may be that the nationalist state system, which appears to be in current demise, is a system that no longer works. But the neo-fascist undertones of the open borders movement is what is driving world-wide populism, and voters in democratic countries are rejecting the idea that nationalism is dystopia, or that utopian socialism will work this time around.
Gallup poll shows a 38% approval and 60% disapproval. Rasmussen show a 49% approval and disapproval. Does anyone know what question is asked by these two “random” sampling companies to get such a vast difference in response.
Rasmussen has a 35% strongly approve and 40% strongly disapprove. Could Gallup be reporting strongly approve and all others considered disapprove?
To big a difference! Figures dont lie, but liars can figure!
Of the major pollsters, they’re among the least accurate at predicting outcomes.C+ rating.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
Interesting, the only one I could find with more than 400 surveys reviewed with presidential approval was survey USA and theirs was only for California. And looking at this list polls a like rear ends, everyone seems to have one.
538 is a poll aggregator – like RCP.
They have had some good successes and alot of spectacular failures.
After 2016 they should not be criticizing Rassmussen.
At 9pm election night they were still predicting Clinton by over 90%.
Actually over the past 12 years Rassmussen has been more accurate than 538.
In the past decade nearly every major pollster has had a huge fail.
And nearly everyone has had a big success.
Rassmussen has had several instances where they were nearly dead right that nearly every other polster was predicting a different result.
They have also been significantly wrong on occasion.
They are clearly right biased, but over the past decades the results have been more strongly to the right than everyone else predicted.
Rasmussen has NEVER failed so badly as 538 did in 2016.
I like Nate Silver alot. But he is under the delusion that political polling is like baseball statistics. It is not. There is alot more than math that goes into it. And Nate like most every other polster is unable to keep his politics from influencing his results,. But Nate is more blind to that than most.
GM announces 14,000 employees to be layed off. 3 plants closing in USA. GM also asked for tariff exemption of 25% on Chinese build Buick Envision. BS!! Leave it there! Or they can shift production for the USA sold Envisions to America to a closed plant here.
If they are an American company, build it here. If they are a Chinese company, then place the tariff on it! And leave it there.
Better: remove the damn tariffs.
When Dumbo Donnie initiated the tariffs GM warned him it would harm the US auto industry & he poo-pooed that. Dumb dumb Dumbo knows better, he says.
So Jay, tell me how building a junk car in China and closing 3 plants in America has anything to do with Trump. Your TDS is off the charts. If your sewer backed up in California, you would find a way to blame Trump.
I want more tariffs on the Envision. We gave GM billions to stay in business and now they are more a Foreign car company than Toyota. That is not protecting American jobs!
Tariffs harming agriculture too…
Come on Jay, do 5 minutes of research and stop regurgitating idiotic tweets.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2532/corn-prices-historical-chart-data
Click on the 10 year trend. The price of corn has beenbsteady for 5 years, well before the tariffs. Now look at corn orices and the declinecwas actually due to Obama policies if you want to blame someone. They have been around $3.60 since 2014 after dropping from $8.00 in 2012.
Figuresbdont.lie, but liars can figure. This tweet blames the wrong administrations. The same goes for soy beans!!!
Use your brain instead of the smart(?) phone!
Ron, Ronny, Dude, my Pal – don’t you know who Tim O’Brien is? Who he works for? What his field of expertise is? Who follows him on social media? (Hint: the opposite of Lefty readers).
Though I like you like a step-brother 🥴, I gotta go with Tim’s opinion over yours on this one, Bro.
Jay Bird old friend, he is an author, a Viet Nam veteran, and a poli Sci graduate. Does that give him free reign for not presenting data in a manner that shows the complete story.
How do you explain an $8.00 price for corn in 2014 and fluctuating between $3.50 to $4.00 since 2014? These are actual figures. Where did he quote figures in his article since 2012?
Here is O’Brian’s Twitter CV – looks like someone who would NOT be followed by the “opposite of leftists”.
Also not someone with a great deal of credibility.
Regardless, it is not WHO said it that matters it is the accuracy of what they said.
I am an OPPONENT of tarriffs.
But even I am aware that NOTHING Trump has done thus far is significant enough to do real economic carnage. I still oppose. But I am not going batshit frothing crazy over the fact that US soybean sales have shifted away from China to other countries.
Tarriffs are fundimentally the same as sanctions – except weaker, and they are highly ineffective unless adopted by many countries.
https://twitter.com/TimOBrien?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1067391237261598720&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewmoderate.com%2F2018%2F11%2F24%2Fhow-moderates-can-transform-american-politics-part-2-building-a-movement%2F
I have no idea what obama’s farm policies might have done to farm prices.
But Obama – Trump – government should stay OUT of prices – farm prices and every other price.
No subsidies, no tarrifs.
Obamas policies impacting corn prices. Could have been something to do with energy policy. Who knows. He ruled by pen and few paid attention.
Tarriffs do NOT lower prices.
Markets do.
Markets relentlessly drive prices down.
Market consolidation and some bankruptcies are a normal market function.
Look up creative destruction.
I find it odd that someone who thinks all business is evil profits are extra evil and rants over Trump’s bankruptcies thinks that some business bankruptcies are a bad thing.
Trump Tariffs Producing Cheesy Cheese Prices.
“While September butterfat exports were 168 percent higher than a year ago cheese exports were down 9 percent, a 20-month low. Exports of cheese to US largest market Mexico were down 10 percent and down 63 percent to China reflecting the effect of retaliatory tariffs by these two countries.”
Wonderful, then maybe I wont have to pay $5.00 a pound in the super market so the Mexicans can have cheese on their tacos.
Won’t the opposite happen after reserves are depleated?
Less demand will make more cheese makers go out of business.
That leads to less demand for milk and milk producers buy less cows.
Leading to reduced supply of milk.
That shortage raises the cost of milk which will raise the price of cheese, butter, etc.
Consumers (you) will pay more.
Real declines in demand reduce real prices – until the supply reduces to match demand.
Real demand is not set by Tarriffs but by peoples wants and needs.
But tarrifs that con not be efficiently circumvented can reduce demand particularly of things that are not necescities.
But the dairy market is so F’d up I would not venture to preduct anything except that government needs to get out of dairy.
Have you actually read what you wrote ?
Your argument is that anything will ultimately produce the opposite effect.
Most US dairy prices are screwed up because of layers of subsidies.
In my state there are laws preventing selling milk at below official prices and amish farmers get prosecuted all the time for violating that.
There are no tarriffs on Chese to mexico – either by the US or by Mexico.
If the Chinese are tarrifing US cheese and thus reducing US cheese exports to china.
Absent other issues, exports to other countries should increase.
If exports to mexico are decreasing something is going on besides tarrifs.
Dave, there were 25% tariffs on cheese imposed on Sept 7th. Was this taken off after renegotiation of the trade deal?
Under nafta Mexico had zero tariffs on cheese
I can not find anything that says the nafta2 or whatever it is called imposed cheese tariffs
I fact milk product tariffs were a major impediment to a deal with Canada
Mexico did threaten cheese tariffs in response to us steel tariffs
Though I find that odd as I do not think Mexico is a big steel exporter
Regardless you can find links to dairy people in sept 2918 saying the threatened cheese tariffs do not boypther them
They still have a huge advantage over Europe
But I want to re else this
I have serious problems with the credibility of news stories
Praticulrly those Tharp turn posturing into facts
There is an awful lot of posturing – by Trump and GM here.
GM has had severe problems maintaining its dominant position in the US market since 1970.
They are getting the crap beat out of them by Ford in light trucks and by various foreign car companies with US car factories in the south like Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, ….
But they are managing to compete in some foreign markets – like China.
They are making cars both for China and for the US in China relatively successfully.
Much of what they are doing was inevitable – Trump/No Trump Tarrifs/No Tarrifs.
Trump trying to take any credit or GM trying to cast blame is mostly political nonsense.
I am not trying to defend Tarrifs – I think they are a mistake. Though mostly I think they are a negotiating tactic.
But I am also not going to pretend their effects are larger than they are.
Targetted tarrifs on true commodities – like soy, are completely ineffective, the market just shifts arround a bit.
Specific situations – like tarrifs on cars from china when GM a US company is producing cars for export into the US market are more trouble.
Cars are much less of a commodity. Cars are made mostly for specific markets.
I agree with you on this one, Dave – an instance where too much government really screws things up.
https://www.propublica.org/article/border-patrol-families-still-being-separated-at-border-after-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy-reversed
Jay, until congress does its job, just open the San Yisdro port of entry and let all of them in.
And do what with them?
California is a sanctuary state. Governor Brown should know what to do with them. This is a bunch of crap. Someone says enforce the law, so we enforce the law and people have an anal hemorrhage. If they put people in jail and put their kids in there with them, it would be worse. So they put the law breakers in jail and separate the kids and people have another anal hemorrhage. Then propose letting them in and “what the hell do we do with them?”
So you bitch about Trump putting them in jail, you bitch about them being separated from their kids and then ask what the hell do we do with them if we let them in , that is a question that YOU need to answer.
You don’t want them jailed for breaking the law. You don’t want the kids in jail with the parents. You don’t want them separated from their kids. And now you don’t want them let in through the port of entry.
I gave a solution to the problem of illegals and kids of illegals who enter illegally. If you don’t like that solution, then you propose something and then we can debate that.
Just asking another question solves nothing except demonstrates not knowing an answer. I gave one. The state of California, being a sanctuary state can provide assistance. If the leaders of California do not want to do that, then do away with sanctuary status. They can’t say they won’t enforce the law and then turn their back on those that come in illegally
Where have I bitched about confining them until their statis for aslymn is determined?
Just DONT separate them from their children.
And I have a GREAT strategy for Gov Brown if they turn the amnesty seekers over to him: he declares a State emergency, and houses them at Trump owned properties and hotels. Bet that would get him serious consideration for 2020.
Well I dont have time to research all our comments, but anything Trump has done you have provided some Twitter link that is opposition to that action. But would you accept putting the men and women in jail and have their kids with them?
Wow what a picture that would be for Huff Post. Men in a prison courtyard with their kids.
Now I like your idea for using Trump properties and i bet the Trump Co. would appreciate the business.A state of emergency allows government to freeze assets, limit trade and confiscate property in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States that originates substantially outside of it. I have serious doubts the same criteria could be used by a state if it were not a natural disaster , but even then the state qualifies for federal funding.
But if it could be used, the government would still be required to pay for the value of the services provided. In the end, Trump would win out either way. His company might even get more in the end.
But would that not crash against your argument against inurement and then would he be looking at another inurement clause violation that the left is gung ho on getting him on?
A state of emergency does not allow asset confication
The takings clause requires government to compensate
That has tended to be. A weak hedge but
There appear to be 6justices chocking over a takings cAse right now
“Where have I bitched about confining them until their statis for aslymn is determined?”
When you bitch about “familiy separation” that is what you are bitching about.
There are laws as well as a consent decree.
Trump is charging repeat offenders and detaining them, because following the consent decree he can deport them very quickly if he does so.
But he can not do so without charging them. And if he charges them he can not detain children with parents. Because you can not hold children with people who are charged with a crime.
If he does not charge them, then he can not deport them quickly, and inevitably he has to release them before holding a hearing
The law just does not work as you wish.
If you do not like it change it.
But I expect Trump to follow the law litterally, and if that offends us, we should change the law.
You are bitching at the cost of sending the military to the border to erect concertina wire, but not the cost of indefinite detention ?
As to your brown nonsense.
Any action that specifically targeted Trump properties would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Any action that cost any private ower substaintially would be a unconstitutional taking.
Unless that private owner was fully compensated for their market value losses.
“And do what with them?”
That is what WE are asking YOU ?
You do not want Trump to stop them.
Well then what are you doing with them when they get here ?
This is the best Conservative writer out there, singing Trump’s dirge:
“Donald Trump is having a very bad week to go on top of his bad month, bad year, and bad presidency, and it’s showing with every manic tweet and every unhinged statement. As easy as it is to view Trump’s tweetstorms as the rantings of a lavishly paranoid man who’s just discovered the myriad joys of cocaine, his doubling down on absurd “witch hunt” whining is, as always, a tell. As he ratchets up the volume well past 11, you know he feels the heat rising.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sensing-defeat-trump-cries-witch-hunt
I would suggest that rather than fixate on tweets you might want to take the opportunity to watch Trump speak.
Find a press briefing or something else where he speaks a while – particularly where he takes questions – and not just some 30sec sound bite.
Trump is having fun.
He is not desperate.
You might be, the left might be, the press might be.
You may think the past week, month, year has been bad for him.
I do not think there is evidence he does.
Absolutely some of his tweets are outrageous.
But everything is outrageous today – and the left and media drove it their so there is little to complain about.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5972759191001/?#sp=show-clips
Very interesting. Sanctuary gun city. And the further we divide!!!!!
And I love the comment from the lady from western Washington regarding laws. Guess its fine for liberals to ignore immigration laws since Washington became a sanctuary state in February 2017, but put that action on the other foot and following the law is a must!
Now, before jumping on me, if there are laws they should be enforced. If they are bad laws, fix them. But, if you pick and choose which laws you and your community will follow, then others have that same right. Dont chastize them for doing what you may choose to do from your agenda.
OUCH!
https://www.newsweek.com/arizona-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-groin-walmart-1236287
I swear when you think you have heard all the stupid things another occurs. I am a gun right advocate. I am also in favor of conceal carry ( across states, not state specific) and gun safety is the primary issue in obtaining a carry permit. But DAMN, can anyone fix stupid? This guy has watched too many cops and robbers on TV where people just jamb a gun in their belt. To bad he didn’t lose a testicle in this, but then he would have lost 1/2 of his intelligence.
People do stupid things all the time
Laws make no difference
Another ex-Republican who gets it!
https://twitter.com/bradthor/status/1068262305132175366?s=21
Yes, many “REAL REPUBLICANS” get it. Trump is and never has been av”real” republican. He hyjackednthe nomination through appealing to independants in the primaries that gave him enough support to out distance 10-12 other “real” republicans by getting 30-35% of the vote. Not until money dried up and most everyone else dropped out leaving just an unacceptible far extreme right winger in Cruz, did Trump begin getting 50% or close to it.
I would hope the GOP learned from open primaries, but I doubt they did. So we have one party for far left.liberals for the most part and another for.populist, moderate labor union members, right of center independents, lifelong republicans, born again christians, tea party conservatives and extremist right wingers.
Easier to break into a fractured party with many different followers than one with just identity politics and anti rich as your agenda.
The Republican Party is pretty ideologically diverse so I am not sure what a real republican is
But the claim that trump represents a more centrist version of republicanism is valid
Beyond that he won the game by the rules
If you do not like that change the rules
Though I would suggest 5hat no matter what the rules are someone you do not like will be able to win
I love bad Thor’s books
I also love Meryl Streep’s movies
I do not presume either to be especially expert on other things
If trump lied about something substantive
You should be able to clearly point that out
You know some obvious statement like
You can keep you doctor if
Or I did not have sex with that woman
Or Benghazi was a spontaneous protest to a video
Please telll me what remark of trumps rises to that standard of self serving misrepresentation against the public interest ?
Cohen Guilty Plea:
What it tells us about the characterless Trumps:
“In effect, Cohen admitted in court on Thursday that even as Russian operatives were hacking Democratic emails and getting ready to dump emails through Wikileaks, even as Trump was publicly praising Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, even as the Trump Tower meeting involving Donald Trump Jr. took place in the summer of 2016, the Trump Organization—with Trump and his family very much in the know—was negotiating to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. The Trump Organization was negotiating—or, at least, trying to negotiate—this deal with the Kremlin itself.”
And to get the deal approved:
“President Donald Trump’s company planned to give a $50 million penthouse at Trump Tower Moscow to Russian President Vladimir Putin as the company negotiated the luxury real estate development during the 2016 campaign, according to four people, one of them the originator of the plan… Two US law enforcement officials told BuzzFeed News that Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer at the time, discussed the idea with a representative of Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary.”
I wonder what Trump will be offering Putin if their on-again off-again on- again personal one to one meeting in Buenos Aires is on-again.
I have read about the Cohen plea
I am quite a bit dubious that the things mueller claims are facts actually are
And I am not accepting them based on a plea deal
Particularly while Corsi is telling us that because mueller claims he perjured himself over a minor detail regarding one email of thousands
That mueller is demanding a plea that
Asserts other mueller facts that Corsi claims are lies
One of the most fundamental problems with mueller is that his approach is to grill everyone until they make a small contradiction
Accuse them of lying
And then force them to say something false
We have exactly that going on with manafort right now
Manafort struck a deal
Mueller says manafort is not cooperating
Manafort says he is fully cooperating
But being asked to lie
Given muellers history with Richard jewel and
I’ve s in the anthrax case I am inclined to beleive Corsi and manafort
And they are not exactly credible
Present some actual facts demonstrating that this hotel deal was ongoing through June
Just to be clear
A fact would be real evidence of actual progress on a deal
Not what mueller appears to claim he has which I am not sure he does
Mueller has grilled dozens of people over tens of thousands of exchanges
Catching each in technical misstatements merely proves if you grill someone long enough you can find some inconsistancy
This is was any good attorney says you talk to law enforcement once only with them present
You answer questions once only
You do not answer if you are not certain
Because even truthful people can get caught in details
I gave you real examples of real lies that were important
These are not over minor details
https://apnews.com/6a9b9dc6a75a4f919290e23de16535b4
Above link:
“SAN DIEGO (AP) — No criminal charges will be filed against any of the 42 people associated with a caravan of Central American migrants who were arrested in a clash that ended with U.S. authorities firing tear gas into Mexico, The Associated Press has learned.”
Did they get on American soil? I thought they were stopped. That is what all the pictures showed of women and children running for their lives. If they did not get one foot in, then we don’t have jurisdiction do we?
If they were actually arrested by cbp then they got to us soil
Why do you think this is significant ?
Score one for your side. No kids separated!
Not yet separated
And aren’t you on the same side re separating children?
Why do you presume there are clear sides ?
No one wants separations
But there are lots of other things we do not want too
I have very serious problems with someone who would drag a chid through thousands of very dangerous miles like this
Given the possibility of permanent separation
Jay, I have said basically three things.
One, laws need to be followed.
Two, current immigration laws suck and sanctuary states ignore the law for some.
Three, if the federal immigration laws are not going to be enforced equally, then ignore #1 and let everyone into states that have sanctuary state status.
HOWEVER!!! Read my words. If you choose to enforce the law, if an illegal is caught breaking the law, if that illegal has 1 kid or 10 kids, we FOLLOW the accepted practice that we follow for ANY individual placed in jail. They go to jail and the kids go into social service protection. That IS separation.
AND, IF IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR CHILDREN, IT SURE AS HELL SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR LAW BREAKING NONE CITIZENS, better known as illegal aliens!
Tell me why these people should be privilaged and not be separated when you or I would be separated from our kids if you or I were in jail? Please provide some perspective on your thinking.
The family separations occurred when adults with families were caught crossing illegally after having been previously returned
You can a
These were never first time crossers
Rogue that crossing should not be s crime
But it is and both Obama and trump used it to jail and rapidly deport repeat offenders
And jailing means family separation
So what is your beef ?
Are you claiming because cbp is not traditional law enforcement and did not properly preserve evidence of violence that it didn’t occur
Another respected conservative tells it like it is, about this debauched presidency …
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/three-remarkable-things-about-michael-cohens-plea/577015/
I respect ken a lot
But we have already been over this
No I do not think this is significant
No it is not close to what ends a presidency
This is more of muellers manufacturing mostly inconsequential evidence and crimes by bullying and getting people to lie in plea deals
If mueller has real evidence reveal it
As to scope or scale
If totally completely true and backed with robust evidence
This would fall short of
Benghazi was a spontaneous uprising over an internet video
A story that was echoed by Obama and the upper tiers of the administration
During an election and under oath to congress
Who has been prosecuted for that lie ?
So is your standard that Cohen is as mich a criminal as Susan rice or Hillary Clinton
And trump as misleading as Obama ?
I will make an easy deal with you
I will get behind every single plea deal mueller has managed if you will subject the small army of people in the Clinton campaign in the Obama administration and in the fbi and doj to the same punishment for the same actions
Though those in the doj and fbi should be held to a higher stanard
This is called the rule of law not man
Anything less is lawless
And corrupt
We’d mueller is politically corrupt
You’re hopeless.
There are STILL
Three big issues her
First scale if absolutely true this is not watergate it is not lewinsky it is not Benghazi it is not on the scale of a president using cia doj and fbi to wiretap spy and investigate an opposing political candidate without evidence and we still have nothing close to evidence today
Second the rule of law
That requires the same laws apply the same way to republicans as democrats
Mueller has about half a dozen people he has strong armed into meaningless and possibly fraudulent please over mis statements that most of us can rarely see without repeated explanations pretty much the definition of NOT perjury
We have a small army of democrats and members of fbi doj cia who have made far more clearly egregious misstatements under oath and never been investigated
That is pretty much NOT the rule of law
Get it through your head
The American revolutions occurred because the British did not follow the rule of law
When government does not follow the rule of law the violence is justified
Read the Declaration of Independence that is explicitly an assertion that when government is lawless violence against government is justified
That word justified is critical it is the difference between antifa and the red brigades and the American revolution
I am not saying we are facing revolution Ii tomorrow
But I am saying that if government remains lawless more and more people on the right will believe with justification that violence is warranted
To be clear violence is rarely justified
But rare is not never
What you constantly call whataboutism is actually called the rule of law
If you do not grasp,that vastly disparate application of the law is going to result in very bad outcomes you are an idiot
I would further that the more lawless all this becomes the more people will turn a blind eye to trump lawlessness
The last is that not only do I not trust mueller at all
But this approach to investigating anything is Wrong
It Is wrong when the target i trump
It is wrong when It is Bruce ivers it is wrong when it is Richard jewel
It is so wrong that I would prosecute those in law enforcement for it
I would do so not because this is trump
I am not all that concerned about trump and Cohen
But I am very concerned when we start presuming without evidence that people are criminals and then grill them until they commit suicide or we make their lives hell
What mueller did to jewel and ivers is criminal
I thought that at the time though at the time mueller did not mean much to me
More recently I have been finding more information on Waco and ruby ridge and Okc
Mueller had some involvement in all of those though his roles were less and the malfeasance was with others
But the underlying point that the fbi and government can not be trusted is clear
I would further remind you that bundy and those charged with him ultimately prevailed in federal court not because they were good people but because the government – the fbi and doj behaved criminally
Or we have the ted Steven case
I was not a Stevens fan
But ultimately not only did a court throw everything against him out but they found it was manufactured by the fbi
That the fbi coerced witnesses into lying
Or the Howard roof case that I linked video to several times
It is pretty uncommon to find a high profile case in which the fbi or doj has not behaved badly
I am not with trump
I do not think that most FBI agents are good guys
I think that we have allowed law enforcement to infringe on rights to such an extent that we are well past lawless
You are gifted. Great stuff. Please write more often.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/comment_send.php
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrat-claire-mccaskill-angry-party-departs-senate
I dont agree with her Saudi statement, I think there are many people not even following that and many like me who could care less. ( An issue for two distinct separate governments from the USA). But everything else has merit. Both Democrat and Republican.
But when the parties either allow procedures that result in bad nominees (Trump and Clinton) or only provide bad candidates, how do moderates get the better ones back when money will not flow to anyone other than the two parties?
The problem with this Khashoggi thing is that hardly anyone understands what it is really about, or what’s at stake. As you so often say, Ron, no one is paying attention. Not to mention that the ME is always a complicated mess.
Khashoggi was neither a US citizen, nor a permanent resident of the US. He was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-semitic Islamist, who was a writer, but not really a journalist. It would be interesting to find out why the Washington Post hired him. He was actively working toward the overthrow of the Saudi royal family, something that does not generally portend a long life.
American geo-political interests are very tied to Saudi Arabia, who is fighting Yemen because Yemen is a proxy for Iran, just as Syria has been, in Iran’s quest to establish hegemony in the ME and destroy Israel. Without the Saudis, stopping Iran would be hopeless.
The same people who wanted the Iran nuclear deal, want to see the Saudi’s defeated. That would be Obama and most of the Democrat Party, as well as a number of Republicans. The media supports them, so it continues to make the Khashoggi murder front and center, by referring to Khashoggi as a “journalist,” which he was not, and even as an “American journalist” which he definitely was not. It’s a shame that the media doesn’t appear to care as much about the torture and murder of actual American citizens, by gangs like MS-13, as it does for this Al-Qaeda loving friend of Osama bin Laden.
His murder was brutal, and Trump should not give the Saudis a pass on it. Which he hasn’t. But neither should he blow up a potential deal with the Saudis and Israel over it, or allow the Russians and Chinese to undercut our position in the ME.
Should the US follow George Washington’s advice and disentangle from the affairs of foreign nations ? Absolutely!
But that is about as likely as open borders.
The political reality is that our leaders and too many of our people beleive or government should be entangled in everything everywhere.
Let us assume that MBS flat out had K tortured and murdered.
That would be absolutely horrid.
But there is no actual US interest involved and we are NOT the worlds policemen.
There is simply little our govenrment should do.
Absolutely we should disentangle from SA and just about every other foreign country in the world.
But we are not going to.
Finally like nearly all news today, the K story is really inconsequential.
Journalists are killed all over the world all the time.
Those killings are no more or less significant.
Most do not get any attention.
K has legs not because of any aspect of the K story.
But because the narrative can be transformed into “Evil Trump”
That is the only part of the story that makes it dominate the news over and over.
I do not disagree with your assessment of the Mideast.
SA is a far better bad ali than Iran.
Obama;s Iran shift was incredibly stupid.
Trump’s reversal back to SA was only not brilliant because it was obvious.
But real wisdom would be getting th F out of the affairs of other countries.
Yes, Yemen is messy and supporting SA over Iran is wise.
Yes, getting out will have negative effects.
But the right thing to do – which there is no chance we are doing is to get out.
If Boeing wants to sell to SA – let them.
But the US government should not be the broker for arms deals.
Even if Iran and Russia and China are.
The cold war was not won by arms deals.
It was not won by our politicians.
It was actually won by free market capitalism.
Not politics.
The ultimate resolution in the mideast will be the same.
There are over a Billion muslims in the world.
They have been left behind by the improvements in world standards of living
and they know it.
What they have not yet realized is that it is because their religion is at odds with individual liberty. Eventually they will grasp that.
But it could take decades of ignoring them
and letting them kill each other.
The mideast BTW is increasingly less important in the world.
The importance of oil diminishes, and the abiltiy to use oil as a weapon declines.
McCaskill makes numerous remarks – many of which are true. Some of which are actually problems some of which are features.
Her assessment of the problems facing her own party are correct though.
Most of the south has been turning from blue to red for half a century.
McCaskills defeat is the tail end of that transition.
In fact that transition has gone so far and so long that a few states have turned from blue to red to blue or purple or pink – VA, NC, and GA are in play for democrats,
BUT McCaskill is perfectly correct – the democratic party does an abysmal job of supporting those like her who were not far to the left.
Still McCaskill is to blame for her own loss.
She had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that her positions were more in line with those of her constitutents. She failed to do so and lost.
She is practically a right winger compared to Warren of Feinstein.
But She represents MO not MA. And in MO she is far to the left of voters.
Democrats won the house by running large numbers of truly centrists in purple and pink districts. Those will be obliterated in 2020 if those voters perceive their representatives as to the left of what they promised.
Progressives are promising all kinds of things from a new democrat house.
PLEASE, PLEASE, Start a Jihad against Trump! Nothing would do more to guaranteee the destruction of the democratic party and the return of republicans.
Or democrats could give a real voice to their newly elected congressmen.
The current battle is over Pelosi.
I do not think Pelosi is some great evil.
But she is the poster child for the democratic past.
She is the wrong choice for speaker.
Specifically because democrats need a new voice one that reflects those candidates that managed to win difficult elections in flyover country.
Democrats can either chose to respect that success. Or they can lose it.
Wow. The Daily Standard says Trump is a pathological liar.
“While there is much that remains unclear about Donald Trump and Russia, what we do know is deeply troubling. Trump lied repeatedly about his dealings with a hostile adversary while that hostile adversary worked to get him elected president. Trump has for years gone out of his way to excuse Vladimir Putin’s misdeeds. One more than one occasion, Trump has publicly sided with the anti-American authoritarian over the U.S. intelligence community.
Why has Trump behaved this way? We don’t know. He lies all the time, about matters large and small. And then, when he’s caught, he simply pretends that he hadn’t lied in the first place. The behavior is pathological but the lies are not dispositive.”
https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-f-hayes/how-trumps-lies-about-russia-were-exposed
Hayes is another Neo-Con.
If you really wish to route your ideology on Max Boot, and Dick Cheney – be my guest.
If you really want to try to claim the moral high ground by elevating Neo-Cons – more power to you.
As to Trump and “lies” – facts, logic reason.
What Trump statement is as consequentially false as
If you like your doctor you can keep them.
Benghazi was a spontaneous outburts triggered by an internet video.
I did not sleep with that woman
Or dozens and dozens of others.
When you are prepared to hold those you support to the same standards as those you loath then and only then are your views worth listening to, do you demonstrate integrity.
In fact find me any democrat whose remarks are more trustworthy that Trump’s.
That should be a very low standard.
What of AOC ? Either she is a bald faced liar or more likely a complete idiot who is always wrong, Either way what is she doing in congress much less as a leading light of the left ?
What or HRC ? Really ? Do we not have enough reasons to know that the clintons are the most corrupt politicians of the past century ? Do I have to list the inumerable faults of HRC ?
Clinton did not lose to Trump because of the Russians. She lost to Trump because however bad you might beleive Trump is one hell of alot of us grasp that Clinton was and remains much worse.
Only Neo-Cons can sell Clinton with a straight face.
What of Warren ? Fauxchantas ? Warren is the ultimate “owngoal”. She smeared herself.
Is there someone else you wish to offer ?
Absolutely Trump is not fit to be president.
Nor is any democrat I can think of, or for that matter any republican.
That said unless you are brain dead, not only is trump OBVIOUSLY the lessor evil between himself and clinton. But also between himself and nearly every other potential contender.
Rand Paul is not getting elected.
Nor is Gary Johnson.
Name a single politicians with a real chance of getting elected that is actually superior to Trump ?
Still a ridiculously low standard and yet, few if any can meet it.
Maybe, just maybe you can credible assert that some other politician is “the lessor evil”
But please tell me you are not so stupid as to try to claim that one of them is actually good ?
And yet you keep telling us all to trust government (except Trump) to give government more power (except for Trump). Please Please tell me how given the real people who are going to weild that power none of whom are substantially distinguishable from Trump who you think is thoroughly evil, and most of whom are worse. how you can argue for increased government with a straight face ?
Purportedly the Cohen deal implicates Trump Jr.
NPR even ran with a story that Trump Jr. lied to the senate.
Only problem is that he did not.
In fact Trump Jr. Confirmed in his senate testimony that though ONE attempt at a deal for a Trump Tower Russia failed – “died of deal fatigue” and had no further activity in 2015 and 2016, that a separate effort by Sater and Cohen continued into 2016.
Trump Jr.’s Senate testimony is itself evidence that Cohen’s was false. Though this is still small beans.
Trump Jr.’s Senate testimony disclosed that he was peripherally aware of efforts by Cohen and Sater that continued into 2016. But not involved in them.
In otherwords Cohen told an inconsequential lie about actions that only Cohen was involved in.
I would further note that this all actually undermines all other claims that Cohen’s assorted actions were all directed by Trump. And that would include what Cohen did with Daniels.
What is increasingly self evident is that though Trump was a client of Cohen’s and sometimes paid Cohen, Cohen was constantly acting on his own in attempts to curry favor with Trump.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/30/npr-blatantly-lies-about-donald-trump-jr-s-2017-senate-testimony/
https://intersectionalityscore.com/
Bush promised Afghanistan would be over quickly.
Obama promised Afghanistan would be over quickly
Trump promised Afghanistan would be over quickly.
Trump after serious conflict that cost Steve Bannon his position as an advisor reluctantly went with the advice of “the generals” and continues our open ended mess in afghanistan.
Bannon may be no hero. Trump may not be smarter than the generals overall.
But both were right that there is no US interest being served by remaining in afghanistan.
Only the Afghani’s can provide themselves good government.
It is near certain the Taliban will rake afghanistan over the moment we leave.
Whether that is tomorow or ten years from now.
In the event they do something stupid again – we are as prepared to remove them from power today or tomorow as we were 15 years ago.
If Trump has lost the respect of some in the military – this would be why.
On this issue he is no different from Bush or Obama.
And like them he has failed to keep a sacred promise to the US people.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-are-us-soldiers-dying-afghanistan-37487
Mark Penn is a democrat and was involved deeply with the clintons in the past.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mark-penn-the-mueller-investigation-has-come-up-empty-on-russia-you-wont-believe-whats-coming-next
You recently stated unequivocally you never linked to Fox.
You and Trump.. the Denying Duet.
“You recently stated unequivocally you never linked to Fox.
You and Trump.. the Denying Duet.”
That is NOT what I said – we have been through this before.
You are engaged in the same radical over generalizing and misrepresenting that you do all the time – with Trump or anything else.
Develop some reading comprehension.
Your response is the same lunacy as your constant equating libertarianism with anarchism.
Limited government is not the same as no government. Government constrained by the constitution or more importantly the government that will only use force where justified to protect actual rights is not the same as no government.
It is trivial to claim someone else is a liar by over generalizing their remarks beyond what they actually said.
I said I do not WATCH any TV media – cable or over the air. Not FOX, Not CNN, Not MSNBC
I do listen to NPR sometimes.
I have said much of this before, but I will say it again – though I doubt it will sink in,
This is SOME of what I do.
I find most of the links I provide on twitter, FB, News Agregators, Youtube, ….
When THOSE sources link to fox, I USUALLY look for the same information from another source – because idiots like you will not beleive what you see with your own eyes if it comes from Fox.
What I have said is I am not a fox viewer. I particularly loath Hannity. Fortunately OReilly is gone.
My information rarely comes from Fox.
On news my information rarely comes from a single source – though I may only provide one link.
On facts – things such as economics, it comes from many many sources. Though I sometimes cite only one.
As an example I have linked to CAPX or HumanProgress,org for information on the improving economy of the world over the past 50 years.
But I have that information for dozens of sources – Frazer Institute, Mercutus, Ronald Coase, Numerous economic papers, …
I will provide you with another example of how you and far too much of the media engage in this nonsense using the recent Cohen plea bargain.
What We KNOW is that Cohen claims that he lied when he told the senate that HIS efforts on the Moscow Trump Tower ended in early 2016.
We are told that there are emails and possibly phone calls from Cohen and Sater attempting to make progress on Trump Tower Moscow as far as June 2016.
More recently I have learned that Sater is an FBI informant.
You and the media immediately blew this up into Trump lied and Trump Jr. and Ivanka are headed to jail for lying to congress.
NPR made the same claim and was forced into the public humiliation of having to substantially retract and correct a story.
Transcripts of Trump Jr.’s testimony are publicly available.
DJR stated that the agalarov efforts at Trump Tower Moscow died from negotiation fatigue sometime between 2014 and very early 2016.
Elsewhere he SPECIFICALLY testified that he was tangentially aware that Cohen and Sater on their own were attempting to make progress in 2016, but that he and the trump organization were not a part of that.
Despite all the initial hysteria and the jumping to the conclusion that the Cohen plea was a smoking gun that would ensnare the entire Trump family.
The actual facts are that nothing Trump Sr said on this is false.
That DJR’s testimony over a year ago is gully consistent with Cohen’s corrected version.
That what this plea means is that Cohen is totally useless as a witness.
There are those like me who have said since this thing was 6 months old this was going nowhere. Once Mueller found this, he had already spent millions, so it the became a ” well I could not find anything Russia on the president, but I did not waste money. Look at all the convictions I got”.
Those with TDS will never believe anything other than impeachment.
Very sad time that getting the president is bigger than making America safe and fiscally strong.
Expunging cancerous Trump is more crucial than making America safer than it is, and financially stronger? Do you really believe Trump’s economic policies – tariffs, deficit, etc – are keeping you from the charity food line? That his goofy governing keeps you safer in your bed at night?
As to Mueller costing millions, the fines he levied have already paid for the investigation three-fold.
Read this for a cogent overview of the Mueller investigation, and the Trump machinations therein.
https://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/the-wars-to-come/
A is not more important than B because you say so
Remove the adjectives from you remarks and they are meaningless
If trump is harmful (cancerous) it should be easy to identify thespecific ways
And it is those things
Not the adjectives you choose which allow us to weigh whether A is a bigger problem than B
Everything is not an opinion
And even those things that are opinions can be measured and compAred
All opinions are not equal
Most opinions are provably false
With respect to economics
The most important thing Trump has done is diminished the burden of regulation on growth
The best estimates I have seen is that is worth about 3/4 % increase in growth max and that trump is probably getting about half of that
But as small as that seems it is still huge
It compounds ever y year
Nearly every long term problem we have
Deficits social security the burden of government diminishes significantly with sustained growth over 5%
Nearly every societal problem the left fixates on diminishes with sufficient growth
Who cares about racism or sexism or gender identoty if we are all doing well
Most of the worst of people diminishes rapidly as standard of living rises
Trumps economics are a mixed bag
But despite many flaws they are still net positive compared to bush or Obama
And yes that is huge
I am not facing food lines
In fact few are
I have served meals for 5he homeless for decades
And that has been changing
It is less and less homeless that I am feeding and more and more working poor
Because there are just fewer of the really badly off to feed
That transition has been happening slowly over decades
Locally shelters have closed for lack of clients
This started long before bush continued even through Obama and continues today
N
I do not care a lot about muellers cost
That is a red herring
If the task is legitimate and necessary
It must be done and paid for
The problem is that it is neither
And that is to expensive at any price
Separately no mueller is not paying for himself
All of manafort assets are a few months of his cost
And mueller will see little else
I would further note that the entire cost of the Russian 2016 internet ads was a fraction of muellers spending
I like Goldberg but he is wrong here
More important if you and democrats beleive he is right you are making a fatal. Istake
The gop made a huge mistake impeaching Clinton
Despite the fact that he fought the independent counsel tooth and nail
Not as trump does by publicly maligning him
But but legal trench warfare
It is not noted much but trump has not done that
The sc has grabbed records from all over
Most of which he has no legitimate basis for
He has acted as if he is president not trump
And trump has only interfered with spittle
There is not and never has been a there there
There is no blue dress
There is no lying to a grand jury
Or in a deposition
The latest Cohen plea like each. Before was followed by the immediate shouts of impending doom before saner head prevailed
Once again there I no there there
Nothing in cohens plea contradicts don jr’s testimony a year earlier
Nothing actually contradict anything trump has said
Cohen and after are not the trump organization
Cohen’s failed efforts to raise trump tower mock from the Ashe do not make it an ongoing project
I beleive David French posted an artical noting that the trump rusia meme I devolving from James Bond to Austin powers
I think French gets it wrong
Because French but makes an important point
There not only was no corrdination with Russia there was no coordination between the trump campaign and stone and Corsi and page aned papadoulis and Cohen
Each were off doing their own thing with little interaction with the rest
We are supposed to take stone and corsi’s ominous implications as evidence of deep foreknowledge when we are talking about people whose job it is to create conspiracy theories from whole cloth
Stone and Corsi are little different frame Simpson and blumenthal
It is interesting listening to stone and Corsi saying that you should not assume their tweeets mean they had some secret knowledge because their life’s are about persuading people that there is something nefarious when there is nothing
Go on YouTube and you can find myriads of stories claiming no the day of reckoning for
Trump
Clinton
Comey
Mueller
Whatever the flavor of the day
Is imminent
Alone with the identity of the grassy knoll shooter
Muellers entire case regarding stone and Corsi is that
For once their ominous remarks actually mean something
The the using of the court jester were in this instance only evidence of much more
If you are going to brow beat and bully
If you are going to subject people to 70 hour interrogations
If you are going to go through every one of thousands of emails they voluntarily provide and
Then micro parse the replies to interrogation looking for tiny discrepancies
You are guaranteed to be able to “get” anyone
That is why these techniques are wrong
And if allowed at all only permitted when there is an identified crime
Europe is generally behind the us in criminal rights
And Alabama is behind the federal government
But neither allow prosecutions for these types of misstatements
It is not how much money mueller is spending
That is actually a pittance
It is the fact that he can cause anyone who has to deal with him to bankrupt themselves
Flynn has been pretty open
He plead because mueller was bankrupting him and going after his family
Papadoulis wants to back out now
He believes he was setup
That minor inaccuracies in his statements do not constitute lying
And he his right
The problem with mueller is that he has the limitless ability to destroy anyone he wants
Corsi has it pretty right when he says mueller trapped him like papadoulis into minor inconsistencies in his statements after 70 hours of interrogation and then offered him a plea deal if he would lie
Is there anyone here who thinks that Clinton and her staff would not be in jail if subject to half as vigorous an investigation ?
And with Clinton we at least know what crime is alleged
This is wrong !
And mueller has a long reputation for this
It is wrong whether trump is the target or not
Mueller is getting nowhere
Sure he can march through Corsi and possibly stone
But that actually leads nowhere
Absent a smoking gun email from assange to Corsi or stone saying
I am trying to hack the dnc
Send money and I will get you dirt on Clinton
There is not and can not be anything there
So far we have no actual direct contact with assange
We have no evidence that assange participated in the hacking
There is credible evidence that is being ignored because it does not fit the narrative that the emails were leaked not hacked
There is no likelihood mueller will ever get what he needs because it is between highly improbable and impossible that What he is trying to find occurred
Mueller is pummeling people to try to prove the grassy knoll theory
He is supposed to be searching for the truth
Not trying to force reality to fit preconceptions
You’re even more full of crap then usual.
Like the bozos at Fox, and your alter ego Trump, you’re smearing the purpose/charter of Mueller’s investigation, and the positive results Mueller has already produced.
Stop distorting the scope of Mueller’s authorization and diverting from it’s stated purpose. The Special Counsel was told to investigate:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
He wasn’t chartered to investigate Trump specifically; he was chartered to investigate any coordination with individuals ASSOCIATED with the campaign and the Russian government AND ANY MATTERS arising from it.
What part of that are you too feeble minded to understand? Ask your wife to explain 28 C.F.R %600.4(a). And then tell me where the authority granted him limits Mueller to solely investigate Trump, and not “to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.”
And under that authority Mueller’s been doing a good job, uncovering the dishonest slimy swamp of Trump infestations: associates, advisors, lawyers, pals, and creeps. So far that has resulted in 5 pleas, 19 indictments, and 50+ criminal charges for Tax and bank fraud, false statements, being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, obstruction of justice, Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, identity theft, conspiracy to launder money, lying to the FBI, lying to investigators. And paid for the investigation multi-fold in fines/confiscations.
Though it may not be provableTrump directly or overtly colluded with the Russians to effect the election, like an unwashed smelly derelict Pied Piper wallowing in dumpsters for trash, he attracted the expected attention of lice and parasitic bugs, and allowed them to contaminate the presidency. He is therefore guilty of colluding with vermin, and obstructing the removal of a health hazard infestation from government.
You are correct I am directly attacking the purpose/charter for the Trump Russia collusion investigation.
I have done that repeatedly
So have others.
I am also directly attacking Mueller.
Mueller has serious problems that have nothing to do with Trump and the more I learn the more deeply concerned I am about him
It should be little secret that I am deeply skeptical of government.
I am aware of decades of examples of public corruption and failure.
Wacco, Ruby Ridge the Atlanta Bombing the Antrax scare, ….
I was peripherally aware that Mueller was associated with some of those.
I have over time learned that mueller was closely involved in just about every egregious action by the FBI over 40 years.
So NO I do not trust the guy who totrtured Richard Jewel for over a year.
I do not trust the guy who drove Bruce Ivers to suicide as part of the anthrax investigation, when the NSF now says it is unlikely that the Anthrax came from Fort Dietrich.
I do not trust the guy who had a role in such botched cases as Ruby Ridge Waco, and OKC.
Nor are those the only problems with Mueller, they are just the ones I am most familiar with.
Nor is my critique unique to Mueller.
Unlike Trump I do NOT think the FBI, CIA, BLM, …. are mostly fine people.
I can name inumerable disasterous scandals that each was involved in.
I recall during 2008 completely buying the claims of corruption leveled at Sen Steven’s of alaska. Only to discover when I bothered to look more deeply after the election that the case was so corrupt and manufactured that the judge handling it reffered the FBI agents for prosecution – which never happened.
When it suits you, you are perfectly willing to be critical and distructful of the FBI or CIA.
Are you going to defend the CIA over missing the collapse of the USSR ?
Of Aldrich Ames, or Robert Hanssen ? What of botching John Walker ?
What of botching the Iraq WMD’s ?
I can go on and on.
You are happy to beleive those in government when they are reporting what you want to beleive. And just as happy to consider their intelligence worthless when it is at odds with your politics.
The FBI, CIA and Mueller deserve my scorn.
This is little to do with Trump, beyond that I am not going to presume that organizations and people that have a long history of beligerance, incompetence and corruption are unlikely to suddenly become reliable because they are investigating Trump.
I would further note that in that history of failure – the names Mueller, Comey and Fitzgerald come up constantly.
One of the other things that came up more recently is that Fitzgerald was appointed by Comey under similar circumstances to the current appointment of Mueller – by Comey as acting AG because the AG at the time was conflicted.
The fitzgerald investigation shows on a smaller scale the same flaws as the Mueller one.
At the time of Fitzgerald’s appointment there was no actual crime to investigate.
CIA indicated there was no harm and no crime that Plame was not NOC any more, that the alleged crime could not have been committed because Plame was not NOC and you can not out a CIA officer that is already public.
Further Richard Armitage of State had already confirmed that he had inadvertantly “leaked” Plames identity.
Comey knew all of this when he appointed fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald knew all of this when he started.
So Fitzgerald spend almost two years investigating something that he already knew exactly what had occurred. He jailed journalists and threatened others, and bullied members of the executive and ultimatelhy came up with a conviction for lying to the FBI over some item that was not germain to anything.
Essentially the Fitzgerald investigation was a dry run for the Mueller Trump one.
BOTH were illegitimate.
I have little doubt there is serious malfeasance in the federal govenrment that should be investigated.
But the Fitzgerald and Mueller investigations are political. Their objective was NOT to investigate and prosecute known crimes. In both cases there were no known crimes.
They were to GET someone. Fitzgerald failed and came back with a minor WH actor as a scalp. Mueller will fail just as badly. For the same reasons – there is nothing to investigate.
Before Mueller was appointed everything necescary to know that no investigation was needed had been known.
What positive results has Mueller produced ?
He was not appointed to chase down decades old tax evasion.
And the IRS would be put in the dog house for spending what he has.
He was not appointed to charge myriads of peripheral flunkies in the Trump campaign of technical discrepancies between their emails and their statements to the FBI.
He was specifically appointed to investigate something that everyone with a brain knew was false at the time he was appointed – the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
He has found absolutely no such thing.
As Derschowitz noted – even if Trump personally was negotiating a deal regarding Trump Tower Moscow – and lying to voters about it, right up to election day – that would still not be a crime.
Despite the hullaballo over the past couple of days the Cohen plea is a dead letter.
After running fake news, reporters went back and read Trump Jr.’s testimoney and found that he had explicitly stated that Cohen and Stater were still trying to get something going with Russia in 2016 – but that the main effort had long before died.
Further, I know this is hard for you to beleive but the Trump organization and the Trump campaign are not the same thing.
Nor is Trump anything and Micheal Cohen.
Nor is whatever communications Cohen had with russians about Trump Tower Moscow “collusion” to rig the election.
Trump has had a bad week – all because of fake news.
Manafort did not meet assange – not that that would have mattered.
None of the purported blockbuster news gets Mueller any closer to connecting the Trump campaign to Russia.
What we know is exactly the same thing as we knew in January 2017 and January 2016.
Not only did the Trump camapign have no connections to the Russian government but though several underlings attempted to get meetings between Trump and Putin during the campaign, the Trump campaign itself killed them all.
In addition to the Steele Dossier we have added a few new equally dodgy false stories.
But not only are all these stories false – they are also creulous.
Even Peter Strzok knew that Trump Russia was going nowhere.
Because anyone with half a brain could figure there was nothing there.
There was a candidate with deep ties to Russia, who received money from russia, who colluded with Russian spies – but that Was HRC not Trump.
No Mueller has not been doing a good job.
The entire purpose of a Special counsel is to investigate something that DOJ can not because of legitimate conflicts investigate itself.
The SC law – and the rule of law requires that must be an investigation of a crime.
And it must be a crime allegedly committed by someone with a conflict with DOJ.
Name that person and crime ?
We all know Trump is the target of Mueller – but Mueller has not called him a target.
And without doing so – Mueller has no mandate.
Further the SC law requires a crime.
Issuing subpeona’s requires a crime.
Convening a grand jury requires a crime.
And not just any crime, but one commited by someone who DOJ is conflicted in investigating.
Please tell me which of Muellers cases todate has an actual conflict with DOJ ?
The FBI/DOJ managed to badly investigate Clinton for malfeasance while in office.
Please explain to me how Hillary clinton has no conflict with DOJ/FBI precluding them from investigating her, but Cohen, Manafort, Flynn, Papadoulis Stone do ?
I can identify the Crime clinton committed – violations of 18cfr793(e,f).
Those are clear. The fact are clear. There is not any doubt that Clinton removed classified information from secure systems and transmitted it to uncleared people over the internet and that material got into the hands of hostile foreign powers in real time.
Please identify the specific law that was violated and the series of facts supporting that conclusion regardin Mueller ?
Please identify an individual that he has persued that has more of a conflice with DOJ/FBI that HRC ?
Trump is correct, you have a witch hunt and you are not going to be happy until you have burned a witch.
Despite the fact that the US is generally less insane about our criminal law, in the EU you can not be prosecuted for the alleged crimes of Papadoulis, Flynn, even Cohen.
Because lying to an investigator or prosecutor is not a crime.
That avoids this garbage that we have now were prosecutors can manufacture crimes by forcing minor discrepancies in statements.
I am not a big Cohen fan. I think he is only slightly more ethical than Avanatii.
If Cohen cheated on his taxes and his taxi medalians – go for him.
It is pretty self evident that he served Trump horribly with regard to Daniels. Numerous capable lawyers have noted that his NDA’s are crap.
But bad lawyering is not a crime – nor are NDA’s
And if they were Trump should be the one prosecuted – he is the one harmed.
No I do not think Cohen’s misstatements to the senate regarding Trump Towers Moscow ought to be prosecuted. But if you are going to – then why didn’t you prosecute Clinton for her much more false Benghazi testimony ?
Mostly I am tired for one set of laws for those on the left and another for the rest of us.
“Though it may not be provableTrump …”
The problem is NOT that it is not proveable.
The problem is that it is not credibly allegable.
AND that the Obama administration, Comey, DOJ, FBI and Mueller not only know that now, they knew that then.
The clintons too real money – substantial sums directly from Russians both persoanlly and through their foundations.
By any defintion of “colludes with Russians” that includes Trump’s actions – HRC and Bill Clinton are worse criminals.
why isn’t an SC investigating that ?
To be clear I do not want that – because it is stupid.
As skizzy and deep as Clinton’s ties to Putin are – they are not sufficient to justify a special counsel. And hers ties are much greater than Trumps.
“Though it may not be provableTrump directly or overtly colluded with the Russians to effect the election, like an unwashed smelly derelict Pied Piper wallowing in dumpsters for trash, he attracted the expected attention of lice and parasitic bugs, and allowed them to contaminate the presidency. He is therefore guilty of colluding with vermin, and obstructing the removal of a health hazard infestation from government.”
So your beleif that Trump attracted the attention of lice and parasitc bugs is important ?
So all the clinton hangerons ? All the money they funneled through the Clinton Foundation – money that has near completely dried up because it was never for charity.
The Podestatas who litterally were part of the same deals Manafort is being prosecuted for.
Or are you talking about the alt-right – if so then why isn’t Clinton responsible for Antifa ?
When you have consistent standards your arguments will have more weight.
How is the presidency “contaminated” ?
I am sure you can name a bunch of people you think are sketchy in the Trump administration – but I can name many skeezy dudes in the Obama and Clinton administration.
You are being disengenuous. I do not think you care how sketchy the people close to the president are. I think that you care whether they are democrats or republicans and that is all.
Regardless, Trump’s presidency is no more contaminated than Obama’s.
Trump is guilty of colluding with Vermin ? Who would that be ?
And careful, because for every sketchy person close to Trump it will be trivial to find an equally sketchy person next to Obama or Clinton.
Louis lehrner ring a bell ?
How about Anthony Wiener ?
The Podesta’s ?
Deb Wasserman Shultz ?
Bob Menendez ?
Keith Ellison ?
AOC ?
Micheal Avanatii ?
Eric Holder ?
North Carolina Republicans at work
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/01/672531061/amid-fraud-allegations-state-election-board-wont-certify-north-carolina-house-ra
This problem is easily solved.
Quit handlng out absentee ballots like candy.
Absentee ballots are by far the easiest means of election fraud.
They should be reserved for situations of serious need, not convenience.
If you can not manage to get to the polls on election day, you do not care about the election enough to vote.
Maybe there is something to your story – though what you have is sketchy.
If people came to the door threatening others – WHO ?
There is no chance someone would get in my door without ID, and if they made the kind of claims alleged without a warrant – I would be calling the actual police.
I highly doubt the claim that 80-90% of absentee ballots are turned in.
Produce evidence supporting that.
Shipman’s affidavit as an example – if true seriously questions Shipman’s competence.
BTW why do we beleive this allege malfeasance was by republicans ?
Do we know Shipman’s ballot was not counted ?
No we don’t – because as with all ballots it is impossible to know.
If I am to give any credibility to this story at all – why can’t I beleive that democrats were collecting absentee ballots from people who were likely to forget to turn them in
That is why if you want to accept an allegation like this – you need to have more identifying information.
You have presumed that only one of many possible explanations of this are what occured.
I haven’t presumed anything, dumbdumb. I linked to a report from NPR.
that report – like most purportedly straight reporting today, is not straight reporting.
It is an opinion piece masquerading as reporting.
As such linking to it strongly suggests that you concur with the opinion
Or do you routinely link to things you disagree with.
In CA what is being investigated as a crime in NC is not only perfectly legal but likely the reason that democrats won Orange County.
Absentee voting is one of the most easy areas of elections to engage in Fraud
It should be avoided to the largest extent possible.
What can not be avoided should be very carefully controlled.
What is alleged in NC is WRONG. Though I am not convinced it actually occured.
It was also WRONG when it occurred in CA.
Ballots should only ever be in the hands of two parties – the voter, and elections workers.
And in the later case only under public supervision.
Ballots should NEVER pass through the hands of third parties.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/12/did-ballot-harvesting-not-a-rejection-of-trump-cost-republicans-orange-county/
Orange county has its own issues. But it just hadnt been covered because its the demicrats doing it.
And if you want to know what, the LA timesbhad anarticle recently.
Federalism is the concept that we can use each state as a laboratory for government.
That there are specific domains for federal and state sovereignity and to the greatest extent possible the states should be free to govern on their own.
The constitution provides for no federal police powers – and the vast majority of federal criminal laws should have been declared unconstitutional long ago for just that reason.
The FBI has almost no legitimate federal purpose.
But there are things that are in the domain of the federal government.
The constitution leaves the administration of federal elections to the congress and state legislatures.
The rules for federal elections should be consistent across all 50 states.
From the days and times of voting, to the handling of absentee ballots to the requirements for voting.
I have no idea whether what was done in CA was corrupt.
Just as despite allegations the facts seem to indicate no corruption in NC.
However the official process in California reeks with the potential for corruption, and if there really was corruption in NC that would be the proof.
Further the monetary value of winning an election is enormous – just look at how much is being spent. If only a tiny fraction of that is being spent on efforts to defraud – that is HUGE.
We do not need democrats and republicans to engage in fraud.
As I recall there is a John Grisholm Novel were a supreme court justice is killed and it turns out the purpose of that killing was to alter the outcome of a single case that would not reach the supreme court for several years, but the value was large.
Do you think there are not influential people willing to direct large amounts of money at voting fraud – if they can avoid getting caught and get the outcome they want ?
We need to be confident that our elections are free from fraud.
That is more important than who wins.
There are many many ways to hold elections. We have 50 states and nearly 50 different sets of rules for conducting them.
But all those ways are not equal. Not even all that sound plausible.
I have carped on using runoffs rather than recounts and courts to determine the outcome of close elections.
There is far less oportunity for corruption when the winner of an election is required to win by a margin beyond that of counting errors.
This is also a relatively important anti-fraud measure.
Requiring a sufficient margin of victory or holding a recount makes election fraud more dangerous. It is not sufficient to dump sufficient fraudulent votes into the pool to eek out a narrow victory. It is necescary to commit sufficient fraud to produce a clear victory.
The larger any fraud is the more likely the fraudsters will be caught.
There are many other structural changes we can make to our elections to improve their integrity and more importantly the appearance of integrity.
Oops! NC Democrats caught ballot harvesting too!
And in CA where it is legal – we now have video of ballot harvestors saying – this is a new service the government has made available – only to democrats. Oops!
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/12/12/ballot_fraud_american-style_and_its_bitter_harvests.html
What does it take to understand that absentee balloting is far easier to commit fraud.
Lets limit absentee ballots to the military and those truly out of state for a compelling reason.
“Felix Sater, a Russian-born businessman and associate of President Donald Trump, confirmed Friday that the Trump Organization was pursuing a deal with a sanctioned Russian bank at the height of the 2016 election.
The company was trying to secure financing for a Trump Tower in Moscow from Russia’s VTB Bank through a local developer.
The US imposed sanctions on VTB in 2014 and 2015, which froze its assets in the country and blocked US entities from doing business with the bank.”
“The revelation will be of interest to special counsel Robert Mueller, who recently subpoenaed the Trump Organization for documents related to the Trump Tower Moscow deal.”
Is it illegal to deal with sanctioned banks…
http://www.businessinsider.com/felix-sater-confirms-trump-pursued-deal-with-sanctioned-russian-bank-2018-3
Jay, Sater is a long term FBI informant.
OOPS.
If so, ‘long term informant’ indicates information he was passing was reliable. Duh.
I have no idea whether Sater is reliable. “Long term informant” does imply the FBI found him useful. But then again Mueller apparently found Whitey Bulgar useful and protected him for a long time.
But Sater’s repliabillity is not at issue.
Sater is not the evidence that Cohen was or was not lying to the Senate.
But Sater is the evidence that the supposed “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia, was both instigated by the FBI – they call that entrappment, and further proof that the investigation long predates any evidence of “collusion”, it further indicates that the FBI knew or should have known from their own sources everything that was occuring in the Trump campaign in 2016.
One of the problems Trump has – is it that it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative.
But it is possible to prove that Neither Mueller nor the FBI have ever had sufficient basis for investigation.
I do not recall off the top of my head all the MI6, FBI and CIA operatives that have been part of this. Those I can recall are Halper, Mifsud, Sater, and the two guys who worked Corsi and Stone. Everywhere you turn there is another FBI or CIA or MI6 Asset.
In fact there is todate no evidence of any direct connection of any kind between the Trump campaign and the russian government, no evidence of any direct connection even with russians. Only connections with CIA, FBI, MI6 assets either claiming to be russians or claiming to provide access to russians.
So you are trying to say with all these plants, that:
The Trump campaign managed to “collude” with Russia, and left no trace that any of these people could find ?
I would further note that I am not sure how Cohen – who was not part of Trump campaign, and not part of the trump organization communicating with Sater who was not part of the trump campaign and not part of the trump organization and not part of the russian government and an FBI operative to boot, would make Cohen’s statements to the Senate a lie.
Sater was born in Russia.
He came to the US when he was 8 – do you think he was Putin’s grade school friend or something ?
Sater also worked at Bear Sterns, and Lehman Brothers – Did Trump cause the financial crisis ?
Sater is also the managing director of Bayrock LLC.
Bayrock has partnered with Trump on prior projects, and performed the construction on some.
Sate has his own reasons and his own business interests that would be advanced if Trump Tower Russia became real.
You seem to be unable to distinguish between people working for others and people working on their own.
I would further note Sater has ZERO involvement in the Trump campaign.
Do you think it is not possible to find dozens of Russian’s that have assocaitions with HRC that were actively doing business in Russia during the campaign ?
You seem to think that being able to name two names side beside means they are directed by a single force towards a single goal, and under a single control.
Tony Rezko ?
Sater also has ties to the CIA – after 9/11 he worked for the CIA buying up stinger missles on the russian black market to get them away from terrorists.
Trump did several projects with Sater – all were failures, and some caused Trump serious problems. By 2013 they had fallen out, Trump testified disparagingly of him in a deposition.
Sater and Cohen may have continued to work on Trump Tower Moscow into 2016,
but they were doing so outside of the Trump organization.
Though AGAIN the Trump organization is NOT the same as the Trump campaign.
Just as the Clinton Foundation is not the same as HFA.
Do you think that CF quit taking donations from Oligarchs in 2016 ?
So what is it that Google is talking about doing here that is not far worse than what is claimed that Russia did ?
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/29/google-censorship-conservative-media/
Google Considered.
Russia Did.
The distinction escapes you….
There is substantial evidence that social media is censoring content.
Particularly that of libertarians and conservatives.
Given that they are proveate they are free to do so.
But do you think that is a good idea ?
BTW that is DO, not consider.
Do you disagree that
“I may Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It” ?
So if I defend Trump or russia’s right to say something – am I going to face another plurry of posts from you claiming I am a racist, or … or that I share whatever your exagerated position of Trump or Russia is ?
Russia engaged in persuasion – not censor ship. Those are radically differnet.
I am absolutely critical of russian censorship – which is very real but has absolutely zero to do with the US or 2016,
Please tell me how anything Russia did with respect to the 2016 US election violated your or anyone else’s rights ?
Tell me how anything credible that Russia is claimed to have done in the 2016 US election violated your or anyone else’s rights ?
Tell me how anything Russia did regarding that election silenced anyone ?
I would further ask you
Does the US own the internet ?
Are we free to censor all political discussion of US politics or elections not done by US citizens ? Are we free as a country to bar others from engaging in persuasion regarding US politics ?
If you beleive that we are – then aren’t other countries free to do the same ?
As best as I can tell you think that what you beleive Russia did was wrong because russia did it. Not because the actual act was wrong.
President Smuck Making America Foolish – Again
https://twitter.com/jamieogrady/status/1069579686492205056?s=21
Aside from your spin – what is wrong with this ?
You don’t know what’s wrong with it?
Really?
Yes, what is wrong with it ?
Have you never been in an interminabkle pointless meeting ?
By most accounts Trump did well at the G-20.
That said while campaigning and early in his presidency he considered meetings like the G20 to be pointless and a waste of time.
I tend to agree,.
Equally important they are at odds with Trump style of negotiating – which is likely in this instance superior.
Trump strongly favors bilateral over multilateral negotiations.
And he is right that is a far easier and more effective way to negotiate.
I would note though I trump exagerates the importance of his own foreign agreements, he still has more in a short time than Obama had in 4 times as long.
There is an article on your meme that Trump is not respected by foreign leaders.
The article essentially says they talk trash about him behind his back.
But in public and in negotiating with him they are increasingly deferential.
He has not won their admiration. He has won their respect. Respect meaning they know that in a negotiation with him, they are going to lose.
Some people are color blind.
Some are tone deaf.
You’re Trump stupid.
I asked for an explanation for your naked assertion.
I got insults.
Apparentlhy many europeans are quite happy with Trump.
Protestors throughout the EU and particularly France are chanting “we want Trump”
Yeah right, Trump hasn’t diminished our reputation among previous allies.
“Yeah right, Trump hasn’t diminished our reputation among previous allies.”
I have no idea of that and do not really care. Frankly Trump has nothing to do with the American reputation, nor does the assessment of foreign intelligence services nor do forign polls.
What matters is the actions that ordinary foreigners take.
Do they as individuals aspire to out values of individual liberty, as individuals do they see american products as a good or poor value.
Do they want to come here or make their country more like ours.
These are not questions answered by polls or by foreign leaders.
Given that the obama administration was using foreign intelligence services to circumvent US laws precluding federal government spying on US persons – my oppinion of foreign intelligence services is not all that high. Particularly MI6 and the baltic state services.
“#Breaking: The Dow falls 782 points.
That would be the 4th biggest drop in its history.”
But didn’t Tariff Man claim his economic policies raised stock prices?
Ya think he (and his roBOT followers) will take blame for the recession ahead?
Trump’s remarks on tarriffs are stupid.
Trump’s negotiating tactics regarding Trade are offensive – though I have yet to see an administration do what is appropriate – unilaterally drop trade barriers.
Thus far as offensive as Trump’s tactics are they have been effective.
I do not beleive the ends justify the means – but you do. So why are you offended ?
The Dow is going to be extra volatile so long as Trump’s trade conflicts continue.
WS does not like unpredictability.
The dow is a concern. It is a significant leading economic indicator.
But it has been out of kilter since 2008.
The Obama era policies were extremely pro big business. They were also pro-profit taking and anti-investment. The results drove the dow up while the economy remained stagnant.
Trump’s policies – well beyond Tarriff’s have been pro small business and pro investment and anti-profit taking.
Until the inflated values of the Obama era are cleared, the Dow will remain an unreliable indicator.
I am concerned about the Dow and the Economy. While Trump has overall been good for it – better than the press credits, but not as good as he credits himself.
There are many facotrs that effect the economy.
Further though the US economy is pretty strong, the global economy is not,
and or fortunes are not independent of those of china and the rest of the world.
There are many indicators that we use to forecast recessions.
Overall the near term probability remains low, and most of the “problems” are because the rest fo the world economy is weak, not because of the US economy.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/follow-these-students-example-if-someone-complains-about-your-american-flag-get-a-bigger-one
Trump voters are getting what they paid for – or is that paying for what they got
Nebraska Farm Bureau says Trump’s trade conflicts cost the state’s farmers more than $1 billion hill.cm/zWoYlVm
This has been refuted myriads of times.
There are real and negative effects of Trump’s tariffs and those of the nations we are in conflict with. But they are quite small.
The only effect on farming has been slightly less efficient delivery to market.
If China buys farm products elsewhere, then US farmers end up selling elsewhere.
Absent near infinite short term flexibility in supply the impact of tarriffs on global markets is small and primarily effects consumers more than producers.
Please read the following article, not from the perspective of financial results for a entertainment destination, but from the perspective of what impact our changing education system ( from my belief the wrong way), is having on our country. This is why we have the totally awful candidates for president from both parties because we have a totally incompetent and uninformed electorate. Edmund Burke said in the mid 1700, ” Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Thomas Jefferson stated “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government”.
I looked up this info after hearing comments this week from interpreters of history in Williamsburg. Kids in high school being asked to ID George Washington, a large percentage are unable to identify him although he appears on money, coinage , Mt Rushmore and thousands of Presidents day sale ads. Over 1/2 of the HS kids asked do not know what the Bill of Rights is. Knowing this now informs me why so many support restricting speech they may find offensive. Consevative speech included. They haven’t a clue what the BoR “gaurentees”.
So the biggest ,by far, threat today to American freedoms is education, or lack of. Just like communism and socialist, controlling the minds of kids begins the transformation. So removing history and civics keeps the people uninformed, allowing for thoae like Trump and Clinton to be the “best” individuals the parties can field.
htttps://thefederalist.com/2017/08/22/americans-declining-interest-history-hitting-colonial-williamsburg-hard-not-one/?fbclid=IwAR14GiryTtO_20PDGBVWvWVFsLuKwjD1Zz5ncyovOpyzWixlkwHisU3ansY
Try again
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/22/americans-declining-interest-history-hitting-colonial-williamsburg-hard-not-one/?fbclid=IwAR1SBLN3bGyTQQ3sNegE2MnvdmX6jMyv_CcyrOaAIhxXZNrhOXJqQIu3Geg
I taught HS history in the 70’s and 80’s. It was during that time that “values education,” began to be pushed hard. Teachers were encouraged to move away from the traditional curriculum, and emphasize the ways in which various groups had been victimized by racism and bigotry. In my first year, I taught “Women in American History,” which, in and of itself, was a fine subject to teach, and I learned a lot by teaching it. The problem was that the students were able to take the course in place of basic US History, so I found that I had to teach a lot of context, in order for the students to have some idea as to why things were the way they were, back in the 18th and 19th centuries. When I complained to the administration that many students lacked a fundamental understanding of American history, I was told that they had already been taught the basic facts in elementary and middle school, and it was time to go beyond the rote learning of facts and dates.
Since the 80’s, I think that even the rote learning of facts and dates has been scrapped….
It is not the rote learning of dates and “facts” that is relevant – particularly in HS.
Though at some point students should get facts such as what is our constitution, and how is our government structured.
What they should be learning in HS is the arc of history – the development of ideas and values, and it is a part of that that gets Gavin McInnes and some of the rest of us called white supremecists or nationalists.
History is the story of the progress of our ideas.
Some form of government beyond tribes first emerged in Mespotamia a bit less than 10,000 years ago.
What was that idea and how did it evolve ?
History is often quite male western centric.
There are good reasons to study the ideas outside that path,
One of the reasons for studying china, india, africa, is to figure out why they did not become the apex of human civilization today – not that they were not at one point in time.
The core of history is the evolution of government, its birth, and its development.
Why was what the greeks created better than what preceded it, and why was it superseded,
Why did the western concept of government become the pinnacle today ?
This is not about dates and facts, but it is about the development of the idea of government, it is about the theory and the practice, what worked and what did not.
We should read plato, to learn what greece has to offer, but we should grasp that greek democracy was superceded by the roman republic and that ultimately it is the western republic of which the US is the current pinacle that became the dominant and most successful form of government todate.
It is particularly important to learn that the western idea of self govenrment, limited government and individual liberty more than any other prior or subsequent arrangement has catapulted human standard of living unlike anything else.
This is the core to “american exceptionalism”.
We must study not only plato, but martin luther, and voltaire and locke, and our founders, and JS mills, and we must study marx and hitler and stalin and Mao to learn what worked and why and what failed and why.
Starting in the 19th century with the french revolution the competition to maximizing individual liberty has been egalitarianism – maximizing equality. Those are similar but distinct, as well as antithetical concepts. Egalitarianism has failed whenever it has been tried – from the french revolution through Venezeula.
History does not end. The evolution of our ideas of governance is not static, we are not done, and future progress in government may move from the west and the US. But todate it has not. Todate attempts to build a government that is superior to that of the US have failed.
History is important because all ideas are NOT equal. Because some work better than others, and we learn that from history.
Our ignorance of history dooms us to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Much of what I argue here has been argued before, decades, centuries sometimes millennia ago. These are questions and issues that have been asked, and answered – both philosophically and practically.
It is shocking to me that we can have people argue as Sanders or AOC do, or that more than a tiny fraction of people can argue collectivism.
Not only are they ignorant of the fact that history has proven them wrong – but they are entirely ignorant of the history, philosophy of the very collectivism they espouse.
What AOC and Sanders are selling is not marxism or socialism – but only because it is not even as well thought out as marxism and socialism. They do not know the basics of even their own dead ideology.
I remember history and all the dates and places we had the memorize. I dont think the dinosaur method of teaching history was very productive then, but we did know about the revolutionary war, constitution, civil war, etc. When the cotton gin was created is not important, but the impact on manufacturing was, just as the assembly.plants. All of this can be related to issues we face today.
The revolutionaries created a government out of frustration with a government centralized in a few individuals and created a government that was designed to give control to the people and one where 50%+1 could not use force to control the other 50%-1 of the population. Today we have this force as demonstrated by the PPACA where a small majority of people accepted force on the large percent of the minority requiring purchase of a private enterprises product. What happened in the 1700’s can be related to issues today. The exact date of the civil war is unimportant and where the location of the first shot is inconsequencial. What is important is this war was based on TWO things. Not just the one everyone discusses, slavery. The two issues were slavery and states rights. Not only was slavery important, but the question of a strong federal government controlling activities in states was also important. Can that also not be discussed today inissues like abortion.
people need to know history to know how to repeat dumb mistake of the past.
As for administration not listening, government, and especially our education systems, is the model for the Peter Principle. Those in the positions of power are those that have no clue what the teachers are dealing with. As long as they can say they have developed new classroom subjects, like your women in history class, and report kids, know what a condom is, what it us used for and how to use it, they are rewarded for preparing the future generation for positions that will lead us forward for the next few decades.
English history is important too.
There is a real evolution in government from Hamurabi, through the greeks to the romans to europe, to england and the magna carte and then the revolution.
One of the big issues for our founders is that they felt entitled to the same rights are englishmen. From their perspective England already governed the people in Britain well.
But it denied the colonists the rights of englishmen.
There is some fudging of reality here – english commoners did not do all that well and affluent americans just would not have become affluent in England.
But lets not let reality get in the way.
The United states is the current appogee of a particular ideal of government and individual liberty. While we have backsliden and messed up in numerous ways we still MOSTLY reflect that appogee,
The problem with our lack of understanding of history is that we keep seeking to go in directions that we know fail.
Specific dates and mostly marker events – the old rote way of learning do not matter much.
But learning the progression, the development of ideas and their implimentations, what worked and what did not – both the practical and the underlying principles and values that matters alot.
It is also important to understand things on multiple levels.
The “compromise” regarding the structure of congress was about more than addressing the issue of small states and large states. It was also about the entire concept of checks and balances. Our constitution deliberagtely created different centers of power for different political classes. The objective was NOT so that they could accomplsh something, but so that they could block it.
Our government is structured with limited powers, but also seveely handicapped in excercising those powers.
That is intentional, and matters as much today as 200 years ago.
College students do not know ANYTHING about pearl harbor ?
I am watching the “the Man in the High Castle” – in it the Nazi’s program for america is Jarh Zero – to obliterate prior US history.
History is important for the reasons Burke notes as well as Jefferson and myriads of others.
The good of US history is important as well as the bad.
The reason that Kids do not know those things, is they are not taught them.
That is important. It is more difficult to get people to buy horseshit when they know how badly it worked in the past. It is easier to move towards real progress when people know what did work in the past.
I would specifically note – it is not and never has been the right that seeks to destroy or rewrite history. That is done near exclusively by the left.
AOC is the hero of the left right now. I would bet she knows no more of the history of our founders than what she gleaned from watching Hamilton.
I would not say that education is our biggest threat, but it is a big one, and there are so many.
How can one have any idea what MAGA means without knowing our history ?
How can one know if Trump is really restoring greatness or imposing tyrany if we do not know what our past was ?
Kids graduate from High School knowing every evil thing people in this country have ever done. But they do not learn that the US is the birthplace of a kind of freedom that never existed before. No aristocracy. An actual meritocracy. Maybe not a perfect one, but the first and still the pre-eminent one.
We have Tim Cooke at Apple arguing to silence those whose oppinions he does not like.
We have the leaders of Google and Facebook and twitter actually doing it.
Progressive Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis would be labeled a reactionary today.
I doubt that Tim Cooke or Zuckerburg even know what he said.
I doubt they have a clue who John Stuart Mill was. Or Voltaire.
We can not learn from the past if we do not know it.
Most everything we fight over today has been fought over before.
Most everything we fight over today has been answered decisively after serious debate by great minds in the past. Often over and over and over again.
But if you can destroy the past, then you can prevent people from learning from it.
If you can destroy the past you can push through the same mistakes that have failed over and over in the past because people do not know.
I have made comments on the Paris Accords a few times and why I did not agree with it. So given this article, I have another reason for not supporting it. The use of western taxpayer money to fund other countries efforts.
But this article describes better the way I look at this agreement. I do believe if scientist will explain to people why this warming of the planet is different from other warming periods where the earth was warmer than now, but a reversal occurred, then people might buy the argument. But that difference has never been explained. Just having politicians running their mouth without facts just creates a divided public with nothing other than political positions supporting their position.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_pat_buchanan/will_paris_riots_scuttle_climate_accord
It is not the job of scientists to determine what is right or wrong. what we should or should not do, what is moral or immoral.
The climate changes – it has through billions of years. There is no moral component to that.
It is the role of scientists to tell us what drives that change. A job they have failed at thus far. Not because they are bad scientists – though many are, but because that is a hard to impossible task.
Just one serious flaw in the science – we know that climate has been highly variable in the past. Climate scientists claim to be able to tell us exactly what part of recent climate change is the result of human activities. But they are completely unable to tell us why claimate varied naturally in the past.
If you do not know the causes of natural claimate variation, how can you possibly know what part of current variation is caused by humans. The answer is that you can’t.
The ONLY existing theories explaining past climate variation come entirely from SKEPTICS.
Those theories leave alot to be desired. Some of the ciriticism of warmists are valid.
But there is no alternative theries from warmist. The Global Climate models assume that absent human CO2 that climate would not change – that is absurd.
The next major flaw was aluded to above.
Science can sometimes tell us if you do A then B will happen.
Science can not tell us what we SHOULD do. It can not tell us A is better than B.
It might be able to tell us that A is colder than B.
Better (or worse) is a moral judgement. It is not a scientific one. It is not the domain of scientists. There is a false presumption in climate science that climate should not change, that change is bad. That is weird., because that is a view that even conservatives do not adhere to religiously.
Whether a change is good or bad is always a moral question.
The last flaw in climate science is that if we decide what good and bad climate is, then how we get good climate is an engineering problem – not a science problem.
Some scientists are good at math and statistics – particularly astronomers and particle physicists.
But the majority of scientists – doctors, psychologists, many economists, climate scientists, … are pretty bad at math and statistics. In fact most of us are pretty bad at math and statistics (and logic). they can be difficult.
It has always been true that advances were dependent on decent math skills.
When the greeks calculated the size of the earth 2000 years ago, small imprecision in math would have resulted in large errors,
But today the precision required in mathematics to make an advance is incredible.
We are determining the mass size and composition of planets many light years away, they we can not see at all, and can only get clues about from tiny variations in other things that we can barely see when the one disrupts the light emanating from the other.
We are determining the existance of incredibly rare subatomic particles that exist for only the briefest instances, again by observing changes in things we can barely measure.
Climate science is not even close to that degree of precision.
Trendberth and much of the warmist community spent a decade chasing “the missing heat” in the oceans – when there was a mathematically trivial way to prove it did not exist.
They searched high, they searched low, the meausearch temperatures throughout the ocean, high low, mid, they spent hundreds of millions trying to find “the missing heat”.
When it was obvious it did not exist in the first place.
Despite hystericallly nonsensical predication of what future sea level will be that are several orders of magnitude greater than what even the IPCC predicts, we can reasonably well measure changes in sea level.
There are two causes to sea level changes – gains/losses in water in the ocean (or gains/losses in water stored in the atmosphere and on land as either water or ice.
Those are reasonably well known and relatively small.
Gains and losses due to thermal expansion/contraction of water.
So the total heat gain in the ocean from year to year can be no larger than that which would be needed to expand the water in the ocean by water amount sea level has risen in that year.
That assumes there is no gain due to ice melting.
That does not tell us where in the ocean the heat is being stored, but it tells us beyond any doubt the upper limit for the heat gain in the ocean in a given year.
SLR has been nearly linear for more than two centuries.
The heat gains reflected by the increases in Sea Level year to year are insufficient to balance the thermodynamics equations for the earths heat balance for the rate of global warming that climate scientists predict. Absent a gargantuan heat store on earth and not in the water that we have not found, Global warming theory should be DEAD. That is why the warmists were so desparately searching for the hidden heat in the ocean.
You will note that sea levels are rising (slowly and linearly) – so why doesn’t that mean we should still fear catastrophic global warming ?
Because linear sea level rise means linear increases in stored energy and temperature increases require EXPONENTIALLY more energy for each incremental increase.
This is a basic property of physics. It is not even unique to heat – To double the volume of a sound requires quadruple the energy.
If energy stored energy is increasing linearly, temperature increases will get slower and slower until they are nearly non existant.
It has taken 20 years to exceed the temperature of 1997.
Barring some completely unforseen event having nothing to do with CO2, the earth is not going to get much warmer than it is.
It is called MATH – with a bit of logic.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/05/climate-change-alarmism-worlds-leading-cause-hot-gas/
https://nypost.com/2018/12/04/trumps-china-trade-war-is-actually-bringing-progress/
This addresses the incompatibility between open borders and the welfare state.
You can not have both.
BTW it does not matter much whether immigrants use the welfare state more or less than citizens.
All that matter is that in reasonably large numbers people who do not contribute are able to withdraw funds from it.
So long as that is true what you have is not sustainable.
I would further note that whatever the scale of the problem, so long as it is possible for non-citizens outside the country to get in by hook or crook and better their live by glomming onto our social safety net, Whatever the current numbers are they will likely increase.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/non-citizens-uninsured-welfare-census-data/
We now have Mueller recomending that Flynn not receive Jail time for the crime of not lying to the FBI – because of his extensive cooperation, and because of his extensive public service and because of the minimal nature of the crime.
The left is ectatic – Flynn MUST have given the goods to Mueller and Mueller MUST be about to run through the entire Trump family pillaging and burning.
Maybe that is true.
But I would suggest that what it proves is that mueller is deeply corrupt – he is as described a bully. If you do not cow tow to him – he destroys you. He is all about the use of whatever power he has as carrots and sticks – without regard to the law. He is the self evident prosecutor run amuck.
DOJ. guidelines require that a US attorney taking a plea bargain must get that person to plead to the highest provable crime. Think of that in the case of all of Mueller’s plea bargains. If the most serious offense that Mueller could prove regarding Flynn was a lie that neither Jim Comey, nor Peter Strzok, nor anyone involved before Mueller thought was a lie – why did Mueller as Flynn to plead at all ? If that was all he had, Then he had nothing.
Take this further into the sentencing recomendation.
If Mueller had managed to roll a mafia hitman and got him to plead to lying to the FBI while providing the state evidence of all the murders he committed at the direction of his Dons – would we expect the prosecutor to say – “judge go easy on the hitman”
If Flynn has provided Mueller with anything of substance, then he has also provided Mueller with the reasons that he should NOT go easy on Mueller.
We will know soon enough but it seems highly unlikely that Flynn provided Mueller with anything that demonstrates his own or his families involvment in anything wrong.
If he actually did I would not would not recommend going easy on him.
Converesely if Flynn gave Mueller everything – and there was nothing there.
If Mueller did not get information that implicates Flynn himself in substantitive other crimes.
Then there never should have been a plea bargain – not because Flynn should not have bargained but because Muller should not have declared war on Flynn.
We have Muellers past – this is EXACTLY what he did to Richard Jewel – only Richard jewel was innocent.
This is exactly what Muller did to Bruce Ivers – and Ivers eventually committed suicide – and was subsequently completely exhonerated. Mueller has a long history of using the power of the prosecutor to destroy anyone who does not give him what he wants.
We all generally turn a blind eye to that – even though it is wrong, When the prosecutor gets a real criminal. But when the prosecutor bullies and brow beats people who are actually innocent, then the prosecutor is the criminal.
I do not have a great deal of sympathy for Corsi, or Stone, or Manaforte, nor would I have sympathy for Axelrod, or Podesta, or Pouffe if the show was on the other foot.
And the evidence suggests that all Mueller is doing is punishing only the political operatives of one party, not all who have committed similar offenses.
But the attacks on Page, and Papadoulis, and Flynn are despicable.
If you beleive it is acceptable to completely destroy the lives of people who have done nothing wrong, in order to “get” someone that you do not like – then YOU are despicable.
Those on the left should worry about Trump’s next AG. Whether it is whitaker, or Barr or whoever.
They should worry that Trump will have his new AG use the same tactics that Mueller, used against the left.
I think that is not likely. Though there are plenty of moments I hope for it.
Trump was after all elected to drain the swamp.
Regardless, my point is that if Flynn gave Mueller information that demonstrates any of the things the left has assumed that he has – then Mueller should not be recomending leiniency and citing Flynn’s public service.
And if Flynn has NOT given Mueller information that demonstrates serious wrongdoing – then Mueller himself should be charged with abuse of power.
This is not the USSR.
Nunes has amended his request for declassification to include a chain of emails, of senior obama administration DOJ, IC, and FBI people over a long period of time PRIOR to the first FISA request.
Purportedly that chain of emails has the IC stating that the Steele Dossier is crap. Has Comey skeptical of Steele, and demonstrates that the FBI knew that Steele was working with the press prior to the use of the Dossier in their FISA warrant.
Today this may sound tame. But it means that the FBI and DOJ KNEW before they presented the Steele Dossier to the FISA court that it was in their OWN assessment dubious.
It means the warrant application was a fraud on the FISA court.
It means the law was broken.
This chain apparently starts in May 2016 and runs through October.
Many of us already grasp that what was going on was political corruption.
The question is how much evidence is needed before the rest of you do ?
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may-provide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisa-abuses-yet
This may prove to be significant.
FBI Whistle Blower Dennis Cain is raided by the FBI AFTER turning documents regarding the botched FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation over to IG Horowitz.
Aparently the Senate IC also has them.
This is significant for MANY reasons.
Cain was not charged.
The warrant application to raid his place is near certain to come under intense scrutiny.
Did the FBI disclose to the court that the person they were raiding was cooperating with the IG who was investiating the FBI at the time they are requesting the warrant.
This has the actual appearance of “obstruction of justice” – by the FBI.
It has been presumed that what Cain turned over to Horowitz does not make the fBI look good. At the very least this looks like harassing a whistleblower – which BTW is illegal. ‘It looks like the FBI trying to coverup and protect its own misconduct.
But wait this is not over. Who was the FBI director during the time period in which the Clinton Foundation investigation that Dennis Cain is claiming was botched took Place ?
Robert Mueller!
This looks alot like the FBI seeking to protect Mueller from having his role in the bothced Clinton Foundation Uranium One investigation revealed.
To refresh memories.
There was an active investigation into Russian efforts to corrupt US business that was ongoing prior to 2013. That investigation started to lead to people tied to Tenex and the Clinton Foundation and others involved in the Uranium One deal.
That investigation was suspended, and the allegation is that was to prevent public disclusures of Russian misconduct from tanking Senate approval of the U1 deal
Mueller was FBI director at the time. Whatever role he had in the investigation, it is unavoidable that he had a critical role in suspending the investigation.
That would create an enormous conflict for him.
You can not have Mueller investigating Trump Campaign Collusion wth the Russians, when he himself was involved in Obama administration efforts to cover up collusion with the russians.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/03/grassley-fbi-whistleblower-raid/
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/12/14/clinton-foundation-under-investigation/
Will Mueller file his collusion report to the current house or to Pelosi’s house. To me that tells a lot. Do it now and it is not political. Wait, and it is another example of “putting the screws to Trump”.
So far everything found has nothing to do with Russian collusion.
So, you weren’t in favor of the Republican delay to prevent Obama’s nomination to SCOTUS until a Republican President could take office?
I will have to look back to see what I posted, but I dont believe I did support that action. But now that Biden supported that action back in the 90’s and this past issue, I would have to say jow if it happened again “turn about is fair play”.
I did – and still do suport that action.
It was a purely political action – it carried both a political risk – at the next election, and a strategic risk – if Clinton had been elected Garland would have been prefered over her nominee.
It is one of few things McConnell has done that I credit him with.
Further I support democrats doing the same thing – if they have the power to do so.
I support democrats opposing Trump nominees in every legitimate way they can.
Though the fact that I suport democrats acting legitmately to oppose Trump or republicans does not mean I always agree with what they seek to accomplish.
I can hate the words you say and die defending your right to say them.
“So, you weren’t in favor of the Republican delay to prevent Obama’s nomination to SCOTUS until a Republican President could take office?”
How are these related ?
Mueller is NOT in a political position. He is roughly equivalent to a US attorney.
Right or left they should be following the actual law, uninfluenced by their politics.
Congress and to a lessor extent the president are in political positions.
The president can pick whomever he wishes to be a justice.
The senate can say no (or do nothing) for whatever reason they wish or none at all.
We can fight here for days over whether the senate should or should not confirm someone.
But they are not REQUIRED to.
Mueller is REQUIRED to stay away from politics and to follow the law and only the law.
Neither, the report goes to the AG who decides what to do with it.
But it is near certain that congress will get access to it.
Though large portions will be classified.
Current expectations are th Mueller is unlikely to assert proof of wrongdoing by Trump.
But there will be a bazillion footnotes where Mueller says this is what he beleives that he can not prove.
So far everything found has nothing to do with Russian collusion.
To be precise, Ron, nothing YET released directly shows collusion between Russia and the Trump Administration.
Aren’t you happy that Mueller is steadily revealing the underhanded illegal actions of Trump Swamp players to the American public (you included)? As a curious observer of American life, I would assume you would Want that revealed and not secretly hidden under cover of executive sneakiness. Am I wrong?
To be even more precise Jay – TODAY there is not a basis for DOJ/FBI to open an investigation into Trump/Russia collusion following the standard guidlelines that DOJ/FBI uses for EVERY OTHER INVESTIGATION.
It is not just that nothing has been found.
There is not even anything sufficient to have an investigation.
We heard this garbage about the IC community being unanimous behind the purported improper actions of Russia and the Trump/Russia connection.
And today Nunes is trying to get declassified a 9 month long chain of emails involving Comey, DOJ. CIA, Strzok, that essentially says that the FBI and the IC actually DID NOT beleive this garbage – and yet they used it to get a FISA warrant anyway.
So in Jay world is law enforcement free to get warrants, subpoena;s conduct 70 hour interviews based on unsubstantiated allegations absent any supporting facts ?
Please tell me what is the constitutional standard ?
I would suggest starting with the 4th amendment.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.”
Please tell me what allegation met the probable cause standard ? What oath or affirmation seeking a warrant or subpeona was truthful ?
Do you understand there is very little that you can do in terms of investigate without probable cause ?
Absent probable cause you can not compell a witness or alleged perpitrator to sit for an interview. In fact absent alleging a specific crime you can not interview witnesses.
Can you tell me what the crime was that started this investigation ?
Even today can you identify an actual credible criminal allegation that existed at the start ?
Everyone understands that If Mueller actually proves a criminal act beyond a reasonable doubt that involves Trump, Trump will get impeached.
That despite the fact that SCOTUS should toss the entire investigation as fruit of the forbidden tree.
We tend to turn a blind eye to the constitution when it actually impeded punishing those we can prove are guilty.
While I should win this argument anyway – the constitution applies whether it ultimately proves that real crimes were committed or not.
But that is rarely the way of the world.
At the same time I am not particularly worried about that.
The entire claim that Trump would collude with the Russians is ludicrously stupid.
WHAT DO THE RUSSIANS HAVE TO OFFER TRUMP ?
Dave, please stop asking questions based on the constitution. Please refer to my comments concerning history and anything associated with that, then you will understand people when they suppkrt issues that appear unconstitutional to people like us.
There is no “appear”
In politics you can have appear, or oppinions.
The law must be as close to black and white as possible.
That is why such things as “loopholes exist”. Because no law can cover everything, and violating a law, is a matter of violating the letter of the law – not its intent.
This is important. We must have ONE law for all.
An act is not supposed to be legal if A does it but illegal if B does
The same with the constitution.
It is irrelevant whether there are differences of oppinion on what the constitution SHOULD say. That we can fix – amend the constitution.
But it is critical that to the extent possible we must have one means of devining the meaning of what it DOES say. A way that we all agree on.
Not that we all agree is the right way, but we all or nearly all agree that following that method consistently produces the same results whether you are left or right so long as you scrupuloiusly follow that method.
If you do not like the textualism of the federalists – propose something else.
But whatever you propose has to meet the same criteria.
It must produce the same outcome for left and right judges – so long as they follow that method. It must produce the same results 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and 200 years from now.
The law and constitution need not be immutable – we are free to change it.
But not without changing the words.
You completely missed my point. When one finds issues that are unconstitutional to them, but are not questioned by others, it is not because the issue is not unconstitutional. It is because those individuals have not been educated as to the constitution and what is contained within.
My use of the word appears was meant to indicate it was unconstitutional to us, accepted by others and unquestioned by too many.
The fixation of the left on the destruction of education is not accidental and I will agree with your argument that one reason for the inability to make constitutional and legal judgements is ignorance of the constitution and law due to increasing bad education. And as I said this is deliberate. The desire of the left is to waste more of the time available for education on matters that will make one into a better modern socialist voter, and less on the fundamentals.
Further students need to know more than what the constitution says – but how it came to say that – not just because a bunch of white guys in Philadelphia thought that would be cool, but the entire arc of history leading to it. The growing knowledge of government, what worked and what did not and why.
We need to study socialism – not to encourage it but to understand that it fails – ALWAYS.
One of the currents in education has been the efforts to emphasize the roles of various minorities and to demphasize the roles of dead white men.
I understand the need for those of us who are not white and male to be able to see ourselves in history. But history has an arc to it, and that arc is about the values we have discovered that work and those that do not. And as of this moment in time the pinnacle of those values as demonstrated by the standard of living they have produced is the modern west.
Studying anything else, must do one of three things:
Show us how we got where we are.
Show us why that other thing was superceeded or rejected
Show us why that other thing has something to offer that has not been further tried.
The latter actually being the least important – because education is about learning from the past, NOT speculation into the future, that is entrepeneurship.
Jay, if there is a crime, then file charges. If there is no crime, then drop the investigation. And dont bankrupt someone like Flynn and then recommend no time. If there is a crime, then jail time!!!
But my concern is the fact these same people would not be investigated and it appears what they have done is clearly something they should have already been investigated for, by normal means. Not by a hachet man like Mueller.
But this shows why a rich business person will never run again and we will be stuck with career politicians since they have never done anything other than leach off the taxpayer. I doubt any businessman is clean if another Mueller came to be.
If there is a crime – tell us what it is, at the very least.
The SC law explicitly requires an identified crime.
ALL investigations require an identified crime.
We investigate crimes, not people.
This is not the USSR
Or it was not before Obama.
I dont know if there is a crime or not. That is what the courts will have to decide. Almost everything Mueller has found so far has nothing to do with collusion, it is lying to the FBI or some variation of that, or other issues that were referred to the NY division that is now filing charges unrelated to anything Russia.
My problem is why wasn’t the NY office investigating Manaford if the crimes were so sufficient to warrant Mueller going off on a tangent from the real reason he was appointed? Why not turn over the indication of the crime to NY at that time and let them get any warrants needed and then do their job? Why did he spend months investigating Manaford where it had nothing to do with Russia and after months of investigation, hand the NY office the indictment on a platter? Where were they if his crimes were so bad?
“I dont know if there is a crime or not. That is what the courts will have to decide.”
NO!!!!
Courts decide primarily if the accused committed the crime they are accused of.
What the 4th amendment essentially says is that law enforcement can not put your life under a microscope unless they FIRST allege a specific crime, and unless that allegation has sufficient evidence to meet the probable cause standard, and unless those providing that evidence SWEAR to the credibility of that evidence.
That is not nearly the high bar necessary to convict. But it is still a high bar.
It is why Alan Dershowitz, and I an to a lessor extent Johnathan Turley are mostly on the same page on this.
The things Mueller has found thus far do not matter. Unless the investigation has a firm constitutional foundation – it never should have happened.
The DOJ/FBI is not a political tool to punish your enemies.
It is not a tool to dig through OTHER peoples lives.
It seems hard for so many – even here to grasp that what you allow Mueller to do to Trump and his cronies – can be done to you.
Several even here screatch for Trump’s tax return. That decision is supposed to be up to Trump. Not Mueller, Not DOJ, not the House of representatives.
The Mueller investigation has run rampant, sticking its nose into absolutely everything.
Unfortunately our modern 4th amendment jurisprudence has pretty much destroyed the 4th amendment.
I WANT THE 4th AMENDMENT BACK
Not to protect Trump – but to protect all of us.
If the house of representatives wants to dig through the entire Trump administration – that is their business.
Though I would ask those of you who cheered when apartiches in DOJ/FBI thwarted the subpeonas of the house, why you think the same should not occur when democrats are in charge ?
I have no problem with the house and senate engaging in political witch hunts INSIDE GOVERNMENT ONLY.
They will reap the rewards or pay the price for the politics of their actions.
They must tread far more carefully on things that are outside of government itself.
DOJ/FBI/CIA which investigate OUTSIDE of government (as well as in) MUST tread more carefully. They must NOT be driven by politics,. They must as much as possible be blind to their own. Further they must be driven by the pursuit of the truth. Not political or personal interests.
I do not as an example beleive that Mueller is particularly partisan.
I beleive his is incredibly political.
Though there are stylistic differences – Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, Fitzgerald, are part of a cabal of government lawyers that view themselves as gladiators. They do not question their own judgements. They beleive in their own moral virtue independent of the law.
Comey’s words demonstrate that most clearly – but Mueller’s actions do.
Each of these has used the power of govenrment to relentlessly pursue some target – WHEN THEY WERE WRONG.
That is very important. The power of a govenrment investigation is awesome. It can easily destroy innocent people. Even if fully exhonerated, most people do not recover from being the target of a that kind of government investigation,.
It is harder to argue for Manafort and Cohen – and sometimes even Trump.
They are not appealing people.
But there is no provisions in the constitution that only apply to “the good guys”.
But there are other targets in this that may not be heros, but they are also clearly NOT criminals. And they have been threatened with destruction even destroyed.
That would not be so strong a claim – if it was not the MO of these people – particularly Mueller.
The recent raid on the FBI whistleblower is particularly angering.
I do not know whether mueller had anything to do with it – that news has not emerged.
But even if he did not the raid was criminal. It is clear that the objectives were to intimidate the whistle blower and to gain the evidence that had been provided to the IG.
How can you not understand how wrong that is ?
Nor is this that unusual.
We have myriads of examples in the past.
Post ruby ridge there was more than a strong basis, there was sufficient evidence to convict more than one FBI agent of MURDER, efforts were made to prosecute at beth the state and federal level. But govenrment protects its own.
The Ted Stevens case turned out to be one great fraud. FBI agents intmidated witnesses to get false testimony.
The Whistleblower was ultimately drummed out of the FBI.
The perpatrotors were never disciplined – they should have been jailed.
Who in govenrment suffered in the slightest because of the botched ruby ridge case where people were killed ?
The FBI and ATF murdered dozens of people at Waco – and what was the consequence ?
We have the mess with the BLM and the Bundies and company.
Just to be Clear – Randy Weaver is no saint. Nor was david Koresch or the Bundies or ….
But all still had constitutional rights.
One of the issues with the Bundy prosecution is that the FBI deployed Snipers whose real purpose was to intimidate the Bundies AND to provoke violence.
The government sought after and wanted a violent conflict.
And they violated the Bundies rights all over the place.
In all of these and many many other instance we have clear evidence of government misconduct.
Not democrat, or republican for the most part – but total government bullying, and rights violations.
And in all cases those on the inside who exposed misconduct end up being the ones punished.
A lousy way to start the weekend: disagreeing with my East Coast pal Ron:
1, Billionaire ex-NYC Mayor Bloomberg announced last week he was considering running if Trump was nominated in 2020 (and he promised to fully DIVEST his business interests).
2. If police receive a complaint of domestic violence and when they arrive no one is at the house to question about domestic violence, but they find evidence of drug use, prostitution, illegal sales of weapons, counterfeiting, and child pornography, are you’re suggesting they ignore it because that wasn’t the purpose of the law enforcement visit?
3. Flyn didn’t plead guilty, and then provide over 70 hours of assistance of testimony on various topics (including Russian interfearance in the election) if he wasn’t guilty of violations of of law, and conscience.
Jay, you can not REALLY be as ignorant as you seem to be in this comment.
“2. If police receive a complaint of domestic violence and when they arrive no one is at the house to question about domestic violence, but they find evidence of drug use, prostitution, illegal sales of weapons, counterfeiting, and child pornography, are you’re suggesting they ignore it because that wasn’t the purpose of the law enforcement visit?”
If the FBI is investigating a kidnapping and they go into that house and find what you listed, do they continue that investigation? NO. They will turn over anything that is not under their stated jurisdiction to the local law enforcement officials. If there is anything that is under their jurisdiction, then they will investigate that. WHY? Because there are two entities charged with two different responsibilities.
I have said ALL ALONG that the SC charge is overreaching. I do not agree with the way it was written. Mueller was appointed to investigate RUSSIA!!!! Was Trump colluding with Russia. Mueller was not charged with investigating Manaford and his business dealings or anything else not associated with Russia collusion. My position all along has been he is trying to justify his existence and expenses by investigation non Russia issues and once completed, turning over the information to NY. That is not what he was appointed for other than “other issues that may arise” or some crap like that. He should have found evidence of a crime and turned that over to NY and let them do what they are charged to do. Investigate Manaford for business dealings and he should have stuck to Russia.
So if you want people running around willy nilly investigating crimes without following the 4th amendment, fine, that is your choice. But I have seen many things that I question if they were legally obtained in this investigation and would wonder how they would stand up in court if it got that far. Since the SC did it and then turned it over, we may find out once the court case is completed.
So everyone know my position on Mueller what I consider a political witch hunt, not an investigation. There is less here than Willy’s blow job in the White House.
But Ron, Mueller has authority to investigate everything he’s been investigating, as this section from the DOJ I posted last week (didn’t you bother to read it?) CLEARLY asserts. Read it now; hopefully you will understand why your remark calling me stupid was the half-assed stupid one.
“The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation… including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).”
And Mueller has TURNED OVER info discovered not covered by his investigative authority to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to prosecute Cohen; and to the U.S. attorney in Washington -to indict Maria Butina on charges of being an unregistered Russian agent; and to the Justice Department’s National Security Division for prosecution of the 12 Russian intelligence officers charged with hacking Democratic Party and Clinton campaign offices. He’s doing exactly what you said he should be doing.
.
No Jay. Mueller does not have the authority.
There is no Trump card that overrules the 4th amendment.
Not only does Mueller not have the authority NO ONE DOES, and NEVER HAS.
There remains to this date no credible allegation of a specific crime.
No only shouldn’t mueller have been appointed,
The FBI/CIA/MI6 should not have been spying on the Trump campaign.
From the very begining the elements necescary for this investigation did not and still DO NOT exist.
The best outcome you can hope for is a retro-active justification – that something that we discover proves sufficient to provide the probable cause that this investigation never had.
There are two independnet arguments – the one is that Mueller – along with Rosenstien, Comey and Fitzgerald are tempermentally unsuited to their roles.
We do not sick pit bulls on people. The most dangerous people are those who are certain of their own moral superiority and yet have no elucible set of moral principles.
It is self evident that Comey’s “higher authority” is himself or his gut.
The most dangerous people are those who use force against others based on their gut.
If they are right – they might be heros – but if they are wrong, they are often criminals – sometiimes murderers. Even where their targets are bad people – they still can end up themselves being worse.
The investigation of the Trump campaign from the start to the present has been criminal.
That is true whether Trump is a good person or a bad one.
Those involved – whatever else you might wish to beleive, whatever they might believe of themselves – are bad people.
That is what “the ends justifies the means” is. That is what actually exceeding the legitimate power you have means.
Absolutely the courts have thus far granted far too much lattitude to Mueller.
Judge Ellis reviewed Manaford’s challenge to Mueller’s authority and found for Mueller, but you should read Ellis’s decision. Essentially Manaford lost, because the relevant issues were not before Ellis and Ellis could not decide them.
Ellis’s decision favoring Mueller is damning with faint praise.
But this is not about Mueller specifically.
The crime involved here goes beyond the SC act all the way to the start.
There is now and never was a crime to investigate.
Jay, the constitution remains the START.
There is no power that can be delegated to Mueller that the constitution does not grant the government.
The criminal powers of the federal govenrment are constitutionally limited.
As a rule the investigation of crimes is the responsibility of the states.
But beyond that the 4th amendment requires that the vast majority of the actions that are part of a criminal investigation require that a Crime be alleged before those actions can be employed.
As has been cited repeatedly the Government must investigate crimes not people.
The SC act repeats the same thing.
You cite Rosensteins charge to Mueller.
That is just a memo – one required by the law,
But it is NOT the law itself.
The memo cites the law.
But your reading of the memo – is essentially that Mueller may do whatever he wishes that conforms to this memo as well as whatever conforms to the law.
The opposite is true. Mueller may never exceed the constraints of the law, AND is further constrained by the memo. And rather than OR.
Rosenstein did not have the authority to expand on the law or the constitution.
BTW Judge Ellis noted that Rosensteins original memo was crap.
Ellis got arround that by using the suppliment provided 6 months later.
Ellis correctly noted that the original memo is not carved in stone.
But the core problem is that no specific crime was ever alleged.
Why do these things matter ?
Because the actions that the govenrment is permitted to undertake are dictated by the strength of the evidence of the crime.
If I say “Hillary Clinton is a Kiddie Diddler” is that enough for the FBI to start an investigation of HRC ?
What constituties suffiicient evidence to open an investigation ?
Lets look at that allegation.
What do I mean by “kiddie diddling” ? That is the same as what is meant by Trump/Russia collusion”.
All actions that HRC might engage in with kids are not crimes. To conduct an investigation of HRC my allegation must specify an actual crime. not just allude to dubious conduct.
There is alot more. Every increased escallation in an investigation and the techniques used has additional requirements that must be met before being able to escalate.
TODAY we do not have enough to do more than interview volunteering and cooperating witnesses.
TODAY there is not sufficient to use spies, or to get a warrant.
To conduct a search or seizure.
Jay, no one has ever been “charged” as an unrequisted foreign agent” before.
BTW this claim was also made regarding Gates, Manafort, Flynn, and could easily be made regarding Podesta, Steele, Simpson, ……..
The law itself remains ludiocrous.
Further the evidence thus far is that Butrina is not a foreign agent.
She is being held without bail – like Manafort is being held in solitary.
Despite the fact that she is likely to prevail.
She is a politically active person. That is all.
And FARA violations normally result in the actor registering – that is all.
Not criminal prosecutions.
Jay, I understand completely he has the power to investigate anything that he finds in his work. He has the power to completely tear your life apart if he finds one e-mail or one call to you from one of the parties involved until he concludes the invite for dinner was just social, not anything to do with future business deals that might include crimes. But is that right? Should you have to borrow money on your house to hire top notch attorneys to clear your name?
You say yes. I say no. My position is there are people employed in this country to look into crimes of this nature. Mueller was charged with Russian collusion. Nothing he has found yet shows anything to do with Russia. Even the issue where the Trump organization was trying to finalize a Trump tower in Russia during the election process has nothing to do with collusion. Had Trump not been elected, he would have finalized that deal himself. And he has not turned over the investigation to the NY office, he continued to investigate until he had a case and handed the NY office the case on a platter. They have little work to do to prosecute compared to their doing the whole thing.
Just because the SC directive allowed him to do what he is doing does not make it right in my mind. It is like a job description that says “and other duties as directed by supervisor”. They can make someone clean the bathroom when they are an administrative employee. But that does not make it right.
Mueller has the same power to investigate crimes that he finds sufficient evidence of in the course of an otherwise legitimate investigation as any other prosecutor.
But no prosecutor can investigate anything that surfaces as the result of an illegitimate investigation.
The foundation must be firm or you risk losing everything.
And there is no foundation for Mueller. There is not and has NEVER been the underlying foundation nor even an actual crime alleged.
It is that that is the fundimental problem and that significantly predates Mueller.
It is not just that the scope of the DOJ directive to the SC does nto make the investigation right.
It does not make it even legal.
You do not have power and authority merely by claiming it.
With respect to the Mueller indictments against Russians.
The “hacking” still remains speculation.
Are you going to allow the iranians to indict and extradite the US operatives that “hacked” the Iranian Nuclear program ?
Most of those indicted are indicted for their social media actions.
Are you going to allow the Russians to indict and extradite Voice of America ?
What about every Media pundit that has said negative things about Putin ?
How is it they are not doing the same with regard to Putin as the Russians puportedly did to Clinton ?
Grow Up. Attempts at persuasion are not a crime – no matter what laws you pass.
Worse still making something that should not be a crime into one just results in the same nonsense from others.
Do you ever bother to think how what offends you would work if it was implimented against you ?
How can what you want americans to do with regard to elections in Russia and elsewhere only be wrong when it is being done to americans by others ?
It is not getting reported heavily by the media – because it is hard to get negative Mueller stories run. But there are plenty within the IC that are not happy with Muellers indictments.
The US has surrendered the moral high ground, abandoned its committment to free speech betrayed its principles and is criminalizing and prosecuting actions that americans particularly in the IC do all the time.
Your fixated on Butina – do you want the russians arresting americans that protest for gay rights or against putin ?
Why is it that you are unable to understand how incredibly stupid what Mueller is doing is ?
You say Trump has diminished our foriegn stature.
How exactly do you think saying to the world – do not F’k with us, do not speak in our elections, but we can F’k with you. We can say what ever we wish.
Because there is one set of rules for americans and another for everyone else.
That is the kind of stuff you pretend Trump does – but it is Mueller doing it, and you cheering him on.
Why is it I care what the DOJ ‘clearly asserts”. ?
I can read the constitution – that is the supreme law of the land.
I can read the Special Council Statue. To the extent that it does not conflict with the constitution that is the law.
The constitution does not permit anyone in government to do as they please.
There is no constitutional provision that says DOJ can publish the purported authority of the SC and that is what it is, regardless of the law or the constitution.
The scope of every government investigation is defined by the constitution and centuries of common law.
The scope of the special counsel is that which government has reduced by the constraints of the special counsel act, and further reduced by the constraints of the SC’s specific authorization.
The process is subtractive, not additive.
DOJ can not grant to mueller power it does not itself have.
Just to be clear the only thing that gets law enforcement in the door in Jays scenario is an imminent threat.
No such thing exists with respect to Mueller.
” No such thing exists with respect to Mueller.”
Thats what I have said for months.
1). So what ? There is no requirement to do so. Bloomberg will not win, so what does it matter. If he does he is unlikely to do as he says.
But you are free to vote based on that promise or anything else,
2). Actual details matter. Really – the law actually says so.
The police response to a domestic abuse complaint must be based on the credibility of the complaint.
But lets presume your most favorable case – the woman calls 911 and says that here spouse is punching her.
The police respond. Under these circumstances they are allowed to gain entrance to the apartment – exigent circumstances, if there is am imminent threat of violence.
On entrance they are permitted to take reasonable actions to protect their own and anyone else’s safety. That would mean disarming anyone present.
They are permitted to secure any visible weapons.
Under some circumstances such as the arrest of the man, they are permitted to search the man for weapons as part of the arrest for their own safety.
All those things are directly related to the alleged crime.
Tangentially they are allowed to seize any evidence of other crimes that is in “clear sight” at the time. Anything beyond that they need a warrant for.
The allegation of domestic abuse – if sufficiently credible AND imminent permits them to take those actions that are necescary with regard to that specific complaint,
BTW if their is no imminent threat then they need a warrant,
Warrants are constitutionally required to be specific as to what is being searched for and where is being searched.
If the police are looking for a shotgun, they do not get to examine cereal boxes.
In the example you cite unless the evidence of drug use, prostitution, and child pornography was “in plain sight” then at best – they need to go an get a warrant.
I also find your choice of crimes interesting.
Our drug laws are unconstitutional. So no I do not think the police should involve themselves in that. But we need to fix the law.
Nor is prostitution the business of law enforcement.
Most of us find child pornography reprehensible.
But it is only its production that should be illegal.
So as to your argument – no the law would not autmatically allow the police to expand a domestic abuse complaint into a drug, prostitution or child pronography one,
You say they “find evidence” – how do they find it ? if it is in plain sight – fine.
If it is not – then they need a warrant and a basis for one.
They are not authorized by virtue of a complaint to conduct a search.
Actually yes, Flynn did plead guilty despite being innocent,
And BTW myriads of people do that all the time.
There are now about 1100 people on the exhonerated list.
Most of these are people who DNA evidence has proven they did not commit the crime they were convicted of.Though some were PROVEN innocent by other means.
NONE of these are people who were released because they did not receive due process.
These are only those released because they were actually innocent.
Nearly every single on confessed at one point. Many of them “plead guilty”.
Some ridiculous percent of criminal complaints result in guilty please.
Though in most cases those pleading guilty have done something criminal,
it is not unusual for them to plead to something they did not do.
That is the reality of our criminal justice system.
Flynn has openly stated that he plead guilty to protect the rest of his life savings – he had already spent nearly 1M in legal fees, he had mortgaged his home. Mueller was threatening to investigate his son.
All of that is bullying. All of that is immoral.
It is dangerous to be right when government is wrong – Voltaire.
Yes, we know that Flynn provided many hours of assistance.
That occurred about a year ago. So what has that produced ?
So far the evidence is NOTHING.
You and the media and the left have told us for over 2 years that the evidence is coming.
You still can not even allege an actual crime.
Further – outside of the US federal govenrment lying to law enforcement is NOT a crime.
It can be used as evidence against you, but it is NOT an independent crime.
That is good. Otherwise we get the mess we currently have – grill people for hours and hope to catch them in some minor inconsistency.
We have both testimonial evidence of numerous people involved in the investigation PRIOR to Mueller going after Flynn that all thought Flynn had not “lied” to the FBI agents.
WE know that the interview was an ambush.
We also know the elements of the law were not met.
The actual law about lying to federal agents requires that the lie is knowing, and that it must mislead the agents.
The agents interviewing Flynn had read the transcript of the kislyak conversation before the interview. They could not be mislead. The only purpose for asking flynn about it was entrapment.
There is a real crime involved here – the substance of the kislyack call was leaked tot he washington post. That was an absolute crystal clear violation of the espionage act.
Only people in the FBI could be responsible for the leak.
No one has been identified as the leak or prosecuted.
That is an actual crime that harmed the US.
According to newsweek from 2014 “Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. As a percentage of all death sentences, that’s just 1.6 percent. But if the innocence rate is 4.1 percent, more than twice the rate of exoneration, the study suggests what most people assumed but dreaded: An untold number of innocent people have been executed.” Twenty of those since 1992 have been shown to be innocent after their execution.
The problem with false confessions is most of those that do that are young and minority, they are drug related, they are lied to by the police who state they have information that will send them away for years that scares the crap out of them and that if they confess, they may have much shorter sentences, most of the time that does not happen. But the kid confesses because he believes the cops and since he has a public defender, he basically has no council at all.
But those of us who may not agree with the police tactics will be out weighed by those that believe in government doing the right thing all the time.
Just to be clear before Jay claims I was “lying”.
There have been over 1000 exhonerations. ALL have not be of people on death row.
I beleive that there has been atleast 1 likely innocent person executed every single year that we have had the death penalty.
Though I would note the death penatly is a completely different debate than false confessions.
False confessions arrise for myriads of reasons – what you stated is often correct.
But there are plenty of exceptions.
The techniques for getting false confessions are well known.
They are the same techniques as extracting true confessions.
One thing that has been proposed – and that I support is a sort of inversion of Miranda.
Let the police question people without lawyers, let them use power techniques likely to elicit false confessions.
But do not allow the confessions in court.
That changes the objective of the police from getting a confession to getting true information.
If you confess and tell the police where to find the murder weapon – they get the murder weapon, but not your confession.
In much of the developed world you can not be charged for lying to the police.
But your statements to police can be used as evidence against you in court.
If you lie to the police you can be exposed in court as a liar and that makes you look guilty.
Please do not Trash Public defenders. My wife has been one for 20+ years.
Though the quality of public defenders varies from state to state – most are quite good.
Most are significantly better than the members of the private bar that ordinary people can afford.
By all means if you can afford Gerry Spenser, Alan Derschowitz, Barry Sheck, F. Lee Bailley – do so.
Bailley may be dead, regardless there are a few private defense attorneys that are absolutely unequalled.
But atleast in my state – you are much better off with a public defender than private counsel.
The worst public defenders – and many are bad, are better than the worst private counsel, and the best public defenders better than the best private counsel.
Even those rich enough to not qualify for public defenders would mostly be better off with a public defender. Fortunately they rarely get accused of crimes.
There are issues – but they pertain to both. Public defenders are over worked and have negligable resources. But if you pay private counsel 5K to defend a felony, the “resources” go to their fee, not experts or investigators.
Frequently private counsel takes a case, botches the preliminary hearing and dumps it on the PD. Or they run through a trial and dump the appeal on the PD’s.
In each case the defendant is less well served.
With respect to false confessions. These typically occur because defendants, do not ask for a lawyer. The police are very good at manipulating those they interview into beleiving they are better off without a lawyer. The very people you note – young male minorities, think they can “outsmart” the police and do not need a lawyer.
One of the typical police tactics is to do the same thing that Jay and the left and the media are doing with Trump. Screetching that every thing is a lie. The police do not need to catch you in a lie, they just need to persuade you that they beleive they caught you in a lie or the jury will beleive they caught you in a le.
The police are a very complex issue.
There is absolutely zero doubt that policing is improving, that it has done so dramatically during my lifetime. And the police should be commended for that.
There are racist police officers – but not many.
There are bad police shootings – but not many.
Most bad police shootings are just bad, not racist.
There are truly bad police – but not many.
Todays problems are:
There is way to much of an us vs them mentality – and unless you are a cop – you are them, not us.
The police have way to much political influence with both parties. It is nearly as difficult to fire a bad cop as to convict them (we are working on the same problem with teachers and other public servants).
The bad cops are protected by the rest.
There are few truly good cops, and most do not last.
The vast majority of the police are somewhere in the middle.
They beleive they are doing the right thing, but they also believe that the rules need to be bent to do the job. They beleive that they have special instincts that allow them to tell the good guys from the bad guys – and they don’t.
We have to work to fix what is wrong, while giving credit for the fact that things have actually improved ALOT.
Criminal prosecutions are about the law.
If you have not broken the law but are otherwise a vile person – that is between you and your conscience.
Regardless, we need not speculate as to why Flynn plead guilty – he and his lawyers made that clear – to protect his son and to get out from under the tremendous cost of defending himself.
We need not speculate about what is in peoples heads when they use words to tell us why they did something.
You say Mueller is revealing things – WHAT ?
It is increasingly self evident that Gen. Flynn was a political hatchet job done by those Flynn pissed off in the Obama administration – people who were out to get Flynn possibly more so than Trump, because Flynn had served Obama and was fired for advocating for the policies that Trump was getting ready to impliment and advocating against the policies that they had implimented.
You can remove Trump from the picture entirely and the treatment of Flynn is unbeleivably politically corrupt and people should go to jail for it.
Flynn may not be a saint, but he is no criminal – though he is being treated like one.
The judge should read Muellers sentencing memo and sanction Mueller.
Papadoulis does not appear to be a brain surgeon. But it is equally evident he is no criminal.
So why is he going to jail ?
Because Mueller is a bully.
In what world is Manafort more criminal that the podestas ?
If Manafort is the big fish you caught – you failed. Worse still you proved yourself partisan.
What of these inumerable russians that purportedly “influenced” our election ?
Have you ever heard of “Voice Of America” ?
What of John Oliver ? Or the Guardian ?
Is it only the Russians who are not permitted to express oppinions regarding US elections ?
There are numerous members of our own law enforcement and intellegence communities who think that Muellers indictments against those russians are ludicrously stupid and will result in americans getting jailed on the same claims throughout the world.
Doubt that ? It happens all the time.
Mueller has just abandoned our moral high ground.
He has pissed all over the principles underlying the first amendment.
We try to persuade other countries to emulate our values and here we are endorsing their tyranny.
It is OK for the US and americans to express views about foreign elections.
But it is a crime if foreigners do so about US elections ?
Alas alas for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrits that you be
Blind guides, blind fools
The blood you spilt
On you will fall!
This nation, this generation
Will bear the guilt of it all!
Quit drowning in hypocracy.
The indictment of russians was a mistake that will haunt us for years.
And worse – some of them are fighting back – and winning.
What else do we have ?
Mueller discovered what everyone knew.
Cohen got Stormy Daniels to agree for 130K to a non-disclosure.
As even a few on the left have asked – why didn’t she return the money ?
This is really simple NDA’s are legal.
They are legal if Cohen got it on his own.
They are legal if Trump had Cohen get it.
Cohen is probably guilty of writing an incredibly bad one.
But in the end Daniels either has to return the money or keep silent.
The law does NOT say that a bad contract is free money.
Regardless, there is no crime there.
Separately we stumbled onto some maybe illegal activities of Cohen completely on his own regarding Cab Medalians in NYC.
More Big Fish ?
I would further note regarding all these “lying to somebody” claims.
Absent proving an actual underlying crime, these are pretty much never prosecuted except for spite.
At the same time we KNOW that Comey lied to congress – his own statements and his own emails and memos are at odds with each other.
We KNOW that Rod Rosenstein at the very least participated in a joke so bad that it should have gotten him fired. And possible conspired in an attempted coup.
You do understand that the deputy AG can not depose the president – even if he beleives that president has committed a crime. That is a determination that only congress gets to make.
Rosentstein can resign and he can go to congress and testify. But any other action would be illegal.
McCabe lied repeatedly under oath and to FBI interviewers.
Glenn Simpson appears to have lied under oath.
The number of people who have actually obstructed justice is innumerable,
And please actually read the statue before raising stupid claims that Trump did.
You can not obstruct justice by doing the job you are mandated to do by the constitution.
That is the first distinction between Trump’s actions and large portions of FBI, CIA, DOJ.
Obstructing justice generally requires interfering with a formal proceding – a hearing in the house or senate, or a grand jury or criminal trial.
It does not occur when the prosecutor does not like your actions.
And now we have the DOJ/FBI and Mueller interfering with an IG investigation into the mishandling of the U1/Clinton foundation investiation,
So isn’t that Obastuction of justice by your defintion ?
What do you call it when the FBI swears out a warrant, and raids a federally protected by law whislteblower ?
What is it when those who are behind the raid, are those being investigated ?
Nor is this new. McCabe used his position in the FBI to destroy a woman who filed a sexual discrimination suit against him – one that Flynn provided her with a character reference.
Get a clue Jay – there is lots of provable corruption – it is a federal crime to retailiate against a whistleblower.
And there a long list of other criminals I have not touched on, but we all know them.
You are just willfully blind.
And you have this bizarre standard of proof,
One were mere allegation consists of proof beyone a resonable doubt if the target is on the right, but incontrovertable evidence is insufficient if the target is on the left.
And just to be clear – no the public does NOT have the right to know whatever it wants to know.
Sorry, I messed that – Mueller is not investigating “investigative sneakiness”.
He is investigating the private actions of private parties prior to the election in 2016.
He Should be investigating executive sneakiness – but the executive at the time was Obama not trump.
Real government corruption is far far more harmful than any private misconduct.
The bank robber does less damage to society than the politician who uses his power to punishes his enemies.
“So far everything found has nothing to do with Russian collusion.”
So far what has been found is that there never was a basis to investigate Trump/Russia collusion.
So far what has been found is what was obvious to anyone with half a brain from the start.
There is nothing that Putin could possibly give Trump that had any value worth the risk.
The entire Russian election operation – which favored Clinton as much as Trump was not even 1% of Trump campaign spending.
Why would anyone conspire with russians – even if it was legal, the influence US voters – something there is no reason to beleive Russians are good at, when Trump could have spent the same money himself from pocket change and had it done well.
The one area BOTH Trump and Clinton tried to “conspire with the russians” over was getting dirt on their opponent. Clinton went so far as to pay for it through third parties, to get garbage for her money and then use it to trigger and investigation of her opponent.
If Clinton beleived the Steele Dossier – she should have gone public with the claims.
If she beleived they were true they would have easily won the election.
Of course if she beleived they were false going public would have lost her the election big time.
I think it is apparent by Clinton’s choices that she and her campaign did not beleive the allegations in the steele dossier.
Even Steele does not beleive the allegations in the steele dossier.
What is becoming aparent is that no one at CIA, FBI or DOJ did either.
And yet they swore to the FISA court they were highly credible.
So we have an investigation started based on allegations that had no support and no one beleived.
Why do you have a problem understanding that is CRIMINALLY POLITICALLY CORRUPT ?
This is precisely what Nixon WANTED to do.
Several of the proposed impeachment counts were because he attempted to do this.
Has right and wrong changed significantly since 1972 ?
“Why do you have a problem understanding that is CRIMINALLY POLITICALLY CORRUPT ? ”
Please show me where I ever supported the investigation¡!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never supportec Mueller!
Sorry Ron.
While my reply was to your post, the “you” was generic and not specifically targeted at you.
You seem to come fairly close to understanding that whether Trump is good or evil,
The efforts to “get Trump” have themselves been evil.
You can not do good, by doing evil to evil people.
You corrupt yourself. That is all.
So what you are saying is that you can not support Trump even when he is right – because “Argh! Trump!” ?
The new testiment Christ who is omniscient and knows mans mind and his heart separates the sheep from the goats, not on what they feel, not on what they think, not on what they say, but on what they do.
What right have I to judge a man on feelings I can not know, on thoughts I can not know on words that offend me, when god chooses to judge men by their actions ?
The conservative National Review has this to say today:
No the Cohen memo is NOT a problem.
The problem is your ludicrously stupid interpretation of “campaign finance crimes”.
Absolutely those directing another to commit a crime are also guilty of a crime.
But those directing others to do legal things that you do not think should be legal are not criminals.
Edwards paid over a million in campaign funds to keep quite his affair with a campaign staffer and the government could not get a conviction. Edwards actions were far more egregious and came far closer to violating the law.
Jay, this interpret the law incredibly broadly against those I do not like and narrowly against those I do, stuff is GARBAGE. It is a variation of the evil that is Mueller.
It is a major part of why I have little respect for you as a person.
I often find myself int he position of defending people I do not like.
But guess what – the law, the constitution, our rights – are the same for those I do not like as for those I love, and for myself.
You pick and choose who you like – based on ideology or astrology, or reading your tea leaves. There is not a lot of rhyme or reason in your choices. They are not driven by facts, logic reason. And then you reconstruct the law to suit your guts.
You want my respect ? Start using your intellect. If you can not do that, then atleast be consistent.
ROBY – MERRY XMAS IN ADVANCE:
How wonderful! A cross between Stanley Jordan, Tommy Emmanuel, and Gabriella! Thanks!
And, merry Christmas! I am quite sure we both want the same big present and it does seem to be on its way.it won’t come by Christmas, but anyone not living in a delusional Rasmussen universe can see the writing on the wall. Not that wall.
Comey and Mueller will go on in history as respected public officials who worked to rescue America from a corrupt tainted administration of fools and connivers; Trump and his apologists will surpass the Nixon-Agnew as themost tarnished presidency in a century.
History tends to be written by the winners. I will not speculate regarding that.
But Comey is a sanctimonious liar.
How in gods name can you be trusted to investigate someone when the criminal behavior they are alleged to have committed is something you are doing ?
How can you not grasp how morally bankrupt that is ?
Is Comey politically partisan – no ?
But that does not make him any less a liar or a self serving crook.
Mueller has never grasped that he is not at war with those he is investigating.
That the role of an investigator it to find the truth, not defeat the enemy – by whatever means necescary.
Mueller’s brutal and criminal approach predates Trump.
Neither are real hero’s. Nor are they profiles in courage.
I would welcome prosecutions of both on the same standards they have prosecuted others because the deserve to be bankrupted and destroyed.
Agnew was tied to a bribery scandal.
Nixon authorized the payment of hush money to the watergate burglars.
Nixon further sought to use the IRS and FBI to investigate political enemies and failing to do so, allowed the creation of his own group to go after his enemies.
Trump has done nothing like that.
But Obama has.
If the claims regarding Trump were true – they would be impeachable,
But they STILL would not reach to the level of Nixon or Obama.
The use of government power for political gain is more egregious than anything one can do privately.
It is litterally the government and those with power in government being above the law.
That is Obama, and Comey and Mueller, not Trump
Another example of your pontificating ignorance. He pleaded guilty to tax evasion, you dunce.
“Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on suspicion of conspiracy, bribery, extortion and tax fraud. Agnew had accepted kickbacks from contractors during his time as Baltimore County Executive and Governor of Maryland. The payments had continued into his time as vice president. On October 10, 1973, after months of maintaining his innocence, Agnew pleaded no contest to a single felony charge of tax evasion and resigned from office.”
You constantly misquote facts like that.
Example from last week when you said police without a warrant could not enter a premises except under Exigent Circumstances. That was an ignorant generalization. Ask your wife for a fuller explanation for warrentless entrence, she’ll correct your ignorance.
More idiocy
Bribery always involves tax evasion
Al Capone was convicted on tax evasion
Are you saying that is his real crime
Jay your ignorance of law and constitution
And you petty misrepresentations are manifest
There are basically 4 circumstances that police may enter a private space
With a warant
With permission of someone with sufficient rights to grant permission
Exigent circumstances of which there are a list such as a crime in progress
Or good faith which is basically they did not meet one of the above
But they thought they did
The courts play games broadening and narrowing exigent circumstances all the time
But it is still on large catagory
Take a constitutional law course
No jay
I do not misquote facts
The next time you decide to accuse me of lying
Be specific
Actually quote the words I used
The n deminstrate how they are false
What I said is “Agnew was tied to a bribery scandal”
Had I actually said “Agnew was convicted of bribery”
That would be technically false but an inconsequential error
And your trying to make into more than that would itself be improper
But that is not what I said
I do not write with perfect precision
But I do write far more precisely than you
As I have said before being right all the time is easy
Do not say something if you do not know it is true
I did not bother to look up precisely what Agnew was cinvepicted of
I therefore used language that was not specific to conviction
Usually I phrase thing more broadly when I am not going to look up the details
I lived through Agnew
I did not recall what he was convicted of
I did not need to look up what he had done
So what we have a lie here
YOURS
A false accusation is a LIE
I am tired of these false accusations from you
When you can not be troubled to read what I actually wrote
I am not perfect
Someday you will catch me in a statement that is generally correct but technically in error
You may even find a real error
And honestly I welcome your efforts to do so
Arguments must be tested
I expect you to test mine
When you demonstrate meaningful error
I will correct them
That is how free speech is supposed to work
But come the day you find a meaningful error
One thing will remain true
You have cried wolf so many times
You have sprayed so much ad hominem
That you have no credibility
And you can not get credibility by bad pedantic sniping at mine
Here is what I said about “exigent circumstances”
It is again not what you claim – and that is obvious and made more obvious if you read the rest of the post.
“If X than Y”
IS NOT THE SAME AS
IF and Only IF X then Y.
Further in the same post I addressed “plain site” as was as “searches subsequent to arrest”
In fact I covered ever single type of warrantless search that Legalzoom lists, though legal zooms assertion that probable cause is sufficient is an obvious error.
Probable cause it the standard for a warrant. The standard for a warrantless search is HIGHER than probable cause. Exigent circumstances is a HIGHER standard.
MOST circumstances where a warrantless search is permitted require an immediate harm if the police do not act.
“But lets presume your most favorable case – the woman calls 911 and says that here spouse is punching her.
The police respond. Under these circumstances they are allowed to gain entrance to the apartment – exigent circumstances, if there is am imminent threat of violence.”
The above identifies a specific instance in which the police can enter and search without a warrant. and one specific justification.
It is also likely in the example I provided that if the victim had sufficient rights in the space being searched she could give permission.
On afghanistan – Trump constantly says the rights stuff but does the wrong things.
Numerous posters here tell us Trump is a charlitan, he does nto defer to experts and does not recognize his on limitations just lawlessly doing as he please.
Yet, it is self evident that Trump has and continues to want us out of Afghanistan.
But despite his assertions during the campaign that he knows better than the generals – he is unwilling to overrule them on this.
And yet Trump is likely right. It is LONG past time to get out. Whatever the generals say.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-war-afghanistan-now-about-only-one-thing-pride-37997
This is why the knowledge of history is so damn important, And people don’t care! They have bought the Bush, Obama and now Trump cool aide for way too long. Why do I say that.
Well, as stated in the article, “the United States needed to keep fighting there, otherwise they will be fighting here”. That was the same F’in argument given for getting in and staying in Viet Nam for years. And then the secondary argument was “look how many lives lost will be for no reason if we leave now”
Yes, if we left now it most likely would fall to the Taliban. But we can not fight religious and tribal beliefs unless the people of that country are willing to stand up against those beliefs 100%. That does not seem to be the case, although they have seemed to fight better than in other countries like central America where they flee instead of fight the cartels.
The question is not one of money, I could really care less about supporting them with equipment to fight, but it is one of how many more lives are we willing to sacrifice until enough is enough. If there are those in the country willing to fight and die, then give them the means to do that,.
But why should we defend a foreign country thousands of miles away when so many here at home are unwilling to defend our own southern border! Why should we put men and women 1/2 way across the world when the action to place those same men and women being assigned to help the border patrol is criticized so widely?
Yes, its time to bring them home!
Which Liberal-Progressive-Lefty-Democrat said this today?
“We now know Trump was negotiating a Trump property in Moscow during the presidential campaign — and hid this from the public and lied about it. We now know Mueller believes the Moscow Project was and possibly lucrative and required, the assistance of the Russian government.”
“We now know Donald Trump, Jr and others took a meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton. We now know Don, Jr., when approached with the promise of dirt, wrote: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
“We know that Trump associates Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi attempted — successfully, in some instances — to get in touch with WikiLeaks and that they are under investigation for whether they had advance knowledge about the email dumps.”
”We now know several Russian officials reached out to a half dozen Republicans very close to Trump and his campaign, including his eldest son, his closest adviser, his lawyer, and his campaign manager. We now know they took the meetings enthusiastically.”
“We now know Russia offered in those chats campaign assistance — “synergy,” they called it. We know now of no one around Trump who alerted the FBI of this effort to subvert our elections.”
Figure out who it is yet?
You quoted the Axios points.
Many are false.
I do not think a single one is more than politically embarrasing if it were actually true.
One of the reason that the SC is required to be appointed to investigate a crime – rather than this bizarre Trump/Russia collusion nonsense, is that crimes have specific elements to them.
Every activity that you can paint as “suspicious” by overreach is not a crime.
In fact I do not think anything in Axios’s long list is actually a crime.
In the end there is LESS entanglement between the Trump campaign and Russia than the Clinton’s and their cronies and Russia.
And there is MORE reason to be suspicious of Clinton’s particularly those actions involving Russia while Sec. State. There are many things that a Sec. State may not legally do that a private citizen can.
Even Republicans are economically illiterate.
If consumers wanted more space rather than lower fares we would have them (and we do but you have to choose and airline with higher prices or pay for roomier seats.).
If you legislate more room for everyone – you are legislating higher ticket prices for everyone.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2018/12/07/airline_seat_regulation_the_gift_that_keeps_on_taking_110951.html
Just something else to blame the Trump administration for when the prices start climbing.
A Mount Everest Of Collaboration
https://www.axios.com/trump-russia-mueller-investigation-37608752-bef7-4b25-a7dd-89e3032bec7e.html
“We now know several Russian officials reached out ”
False. Several Russians – none were “officials”, further most of those contacts were NOT about anything improper.
Even the offer to negotiate a meeting with Putin had it actually occured would NOT have been illegal.
Further someone reaching out to you is NOT a criminal act on your part.
If Tony Saprano calls you and says – “you want a fine italian suit cheap ?”
You have not committed a crime, because he contacted you.
In fact you have not committed a crime even if you buy the suit, so long as you do not have a credible reason to beleive Tony Saprono does not have the right to sell it.
“We now know Russia offered in those chats campaign assistance — “synergy,” they called it.”
Synergy does NOT mean campaign assistance. That is quite obvious from the context of the remarks and if you bother to read the ENTIRETY of the remark it is obvious that is the case.
Further, if receiving campaign “assistance” from foreigners is a crime – Clinton is guiltly.
HRC through HFA received “assistance” from a Briton, who received further ‘assistance” from a russian
And once again an offer that is not accepted is not a crime – no matter what was offered.
“We now know that 12 Russian intelligence officers were indicted for hacking the DNC and systematically releasing material for the purpose of hurting the Clinton campaign via WikiLeaks.”
An indictment is not a conviction, there is not going to be a trial, Mueller would not have indicted them it there was – he would have to prosecute it.
And he can not prove the allegation in the indictment.
An assertion is not a fact. It is still atleast as likely that the emails were leaked rather than hacked. And it is still not evident that if they were hacked it was by russians.
Further assuming arguendo that the indictment accurately reflects the facts.
That still says NOTHING about Trump/Russia collusion.
There is no connection between the russian intelligence officers and the trump campaign.
Worse still even if the trump campaign became aware that the russians had hacked the DNC AFTER THE FACT, it still would not be illegal for Trump to encourage Wikileaks to publish them.
The only way this ever implicates the Trump campaign is if the indictment is factually correct, AND you can proved that the Trump campaign was involved BEFORE THE HACKING.
No one has come close to that at all.
“We know that Trump associates Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi attempted — successfully, in some instances — to get in touch with WikiLeaks and that they are under investigation for whether they had advance knowledge about the email dumps.”
Both false and irrelevant.
It is True that Stone and Corsi “attempted” to contact Wikileaks.
That BTW is the same as “attempting” to contact the washington post.
Todate there is no evidence that Stone and Corsi were successful – not that it would matter because actually contacting Wikileaks would not be a crime.
Further the claim of “foreknowledge” has been repeatedly refuted.
Though again it would not matter.
If Julian Assange met with Corsi or Cohen or Stone personally and told them what he had received and that he had received it from the russians and exactly when he was going to publish it. That would not be a crime.
If The trump campaign “colluded” with wikileaks regarding what to publish and when.
That would not be a crime.
The argument Axios is making would have put Ben Bradley behind bars for publishing the pentagon papers.
“We now know Donald Trump Jr. and others took a meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton. ”
Absolutely true. Though Trump Jr. was disapointed.
But even if Trump Jr. received dirt from Natlaya – who is BTW NOT actually a russian official.
Even if Trump Jr. had received dirt on Hillary from Putin himself.
Not a crime.
What appears to be true is that Natlaya was sent to the Trump campaign by Fusion GPS in the hopes of entrapping TFA, and failed.
The next most likely alternative is that Natalya was engaged in lobbying for a foreign govenrment – and working both sides and failing.
Again saying “NO” to something is not a crime, is also not a crime.
Finally HFA DID get dirt – though false dirt, from a foriegn agent – Steele, acquired from other foreign agents – Russians.
There is no legal interpretation that makes DJR’s actions criminal and HRC’s not.
The core axios argument appears to be that trying to get dirt on hillary is a crime.
That is just nonsense.
“We now know Trump was negotiating a Trump property in Moscow during the presidential campaign”
False, Cohen and Sater – an FBI informant, were attempting to do so.
It is also false to characterize it as a negotiation. They were trying to start a negotiation, or revive one. There did not appear to be anything coming from the Russia.
“— and hid this from the public and lied about it.”
False and wrong and just stupid.
The Trump organization appears to have been aware of Cohen and Sater;’s actions.
They were not involved.
There is no crime of “hid this from the public”
There is no lie.
“We now know Mueller believes,”
“Believes” is nonsense.
To act in anyway he must prove. Beleif is not enough.
No prosecutor can stand in front of a court and talk about what he beleives.
“based on his court filing,”
Beliefs do not belong in court filings.
“Moscow Project was a lucrative business opportunity that sought, and likely required, the assistance of the Russian government.”
Obviously if the project went forward everyone involved would hope it was lucrative.
I know you think that is a dirty word. It is not.
It is what makes the world go round.
Unfortunately, all projects are NOT lucrative – so Mueller’s “beleif” is false, atleast in the sense that it confuses the possible reward for a risk with certain reward.
It is absolutely certain that building in Moscow would require the Russian govenrment.
just as building in New York would require government “assistance”.
Building a Trump Tower in Moscow is still not Trump Campaign “collusion” with Russia to interfere with a US election.
The most egregious version of this – the claim that Putin might have actually been offered a 50M penthouse to grease the deal, if true, and given that the project did not go through is certainly false and evidence of “Non collusion”, would at the absolute worst be evidence of violation of the foreign corrupt businesses practices act by Cohen – another unconstitutional law. It still has nothing to do with the election.
Had the Trump Tower deal gone through – it still nothing.
Need I remind you AGIAN that Bill Clinton received 500K from the russians for a speach, and Clinton was involved in U1 and received massive donations from Russians.
And John Podesta has millions invested in russia and sits on the board of Russian companies.
You are not getting Trump on failed business deals with Russia given that Clinton and company had successful ones at the same time.
“We now know every arm of the U.S. intelligence community concluded Russia sought to systematically influence the election outcome.”
False – the IC concluded the Russians sought to interfere in the election.
Influence the outcome is a different conclusion and not the one reached.
And we NOW know from James Comey’s emails that many including Comey were completely unsure of what the Russian goals were.
Finally – and AGAIN if True still irrelevant.
If Russia decided that it wanted Trump (or Clinton) to win, and litterally hacked voting machines and changed the outcome, that would be an act of war on Russia’s part.
But it would not make Trump or Clinton guilty of anything.
All claims of an actual conspiracy have no evidence. We do not just get to speculate.
Mueller was appointed to investigate. If after two years all we have is continued speculation, Then Mueller FAILED, and should shut up, shut down and go home.
“We now know Trump officials continued talking with the Russians during the post-election transition.”
True, legal, Flynn the incoming NSA took a call from Kislyak.
That was perfectly legal. Outside of the lunatics ranting about “the logan act” which unfortunately includes Mueller, only Hillary True beleivers think that is a crime.
BTW Trump’s public Trip to Mexico during the election would be a real logan act violation if the logan act was constitutional.
“We now know Jared Kushner and Jeff Sessions failed to initially disclose any contacts with Russians on their government forms.”
False. We know that left wing nuts have misportrayed being at cocktail parties where Russians were present and possibly saying hello as “contacts”.
Though AGAIN – lets say this is true. Still nothing.
It is no more illegal for Sessions and Kushner to meet actual russians than it was for Bill Clinton to speak to them and to collect a huge fee – and I strongly suspect actually “meet” with them.
To be a crime, something criminal had to occur.
Mueller has thus far not established any actual “meetings” with real russians.
Conspiracy requires more than meetings. It requires agreeing to commit a crime.
We have nada, zilch zipo.
Using the Axios inuendo standard it would AGAIN be far easier to convict the Clintons – Podesta met with real russians during the campaign
Bill Clinton traveled to Russia, spoke with important russians and came home with lots of money.
“We now know Jared Kushner suggested a secret backchannel with the Russians, which had it happened, would have been free of U.S. eavesdropping.”
False – not “now know” We have known this for almost two years.
Not illegal, and occured AFTER the election. Therefore has nothing to do with the campaign.
“We now know Trump soured on FBI director James Comey, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House counsel Don McGahn in part over their handling of the probe. ”
This is more of the idiotic claim that it is obstruction to be unhappy with an illegal investigation that has found NOTHING, as well as the garbage that something that is legal for one president is illegal for another.
“We now know Paul Manafort, who ran the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, lied about his Russia contacts, was indicted and is going to jail.”
False. His contacts were with Russian aligned Ukrianians. Manafort was OPEN about them. His actions were highly public.
Mueller has not charged Manafort with a single thing that has anything to do with the campaign.
“We now know Flynn lied about his Russian contacts, was fired and pleaded guilty, after agreeing to become a key witness in the investigation.”
False. Flynn was insufficiently precise about whether sanctions were discussed in his conversation with Kislyak. Flynn resigned. Trump was confused at the time, because just like Comey, Strzok, and the rest of the FBI – no one considered Flynn’s remarks a lie.
This is one of the most despicable acts of Mueller.
After this claim was actually investigated, and dismissed as bogus, Mueller raised it again and used it as a club to beat Flynn.
There remains no evidence that Flynn provided Mueller any information supporting the Russian collusion narative. And that would be highly unlikely as Flynn did not have a role in the campaign that would have made him knowledgeable of that had it occurred.
Flynn is an honorable man – Mueller is not.
Further by taking all this “lying” please Mueller has assured that none of these people will ever be witnesses. It is very nearly impossible to put on the witness stand someone who has been convicted of “crim-in-falsi”.
Papadoulis, Van Zander, Flynn, Cohen will NEVER be witnesses.
“We now know Cohen lied about his Russian contacts, was indicted and then flipped to become a key witness against Trump.”
False. Cohen will not be a witness. See above.
Cohen is not a particularly appealing guy.
But if his Senate testimony is a lie warranting a criminal conviction – why is Clinton not in leavenworth ? Clinton has lied repeatedly to the Senate.
Regardless, Cohen as noted above was still NEVER part of the Trump campaign or the Trump organization.
BTW part of the evidence of Cohen’s erroneous remarks to congress are Don Jr’s testimony.
DJR testified that the Trump organization efforts at a deal fizzled between 2014 and late 2015 of “negotiation fatigue”. But that he had been informed of an effort by Cohen and Sater to revive a deal continuing into June 2016.
So all in all if you strip out the hyperbolee and fill in the actual facts the Axios article shows us pretty much nothing.
James Comey testified Friday.
On 245 occasions he could not recall important facts about his role in the Trump investigation.
For those who think that “not remembering” is a get out of jail card to avoid perjury charges – it is not. When you are called to testify and you know what you will be tetifying about, you are expected to re-aquaint yourself with anything you do not remember.
Put simply witnesses are expected to prepare for testimony, to refresh their memory.
“I do not recall” is not a get out of jail card, unless there is no means for you to refresh you memory.
Skipping past perjury – and “I do not recall” can constitute perjury. It is not necescary to prove that you do not recall, all that is necescary is to prove that the ability and opportunity to refresh your memory existed.
I would further note that when one lies under oath – it is generally not perjury until the proceding ends. In the meantime you are expected to correct any errors in your testimony and to refresh your memory and provide the answers. Comey bought himself 10 days and a preview of the questions that is all.
Back to the real point – before congress friday, he testified that at the time that he signed off on the First Carter Page FISA warrant the Steele Dossier was unverified, and at the time that he was fired the Steele Dossiuer had still not been verified.
He then went out in public and told the press
“I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed and that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by DOJ and the FBI,” Comey said. “I think the notion that FISA was abused here is nonsense.”
Presenting unverified information to secure a warrant is not merely an abuse of the FISA process, it is abuse of ANY warrant process, it is an abuse of the 4th amendment.
To get a warrant according to the 4th amendment those requesting a warrant – any warrant, not just a FISA warrant must swear that probable cause exists that a crime has been committed and that the warrant sought will provide information about that crime.
Ballentines Law Dictionary defines “probable cause” as
“a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true”
Would a prudent and cautious person beleive that something that is unverified is probably true. Would something unverified be “strong circumstances ” ?
Swearing falsely is a crime. Swearing out a warrant where probable cause does not exist – is a crime. More specifically it is “crim-in-falsi” – A crime of lying or falsification.
Is this a smocking joke?
No one’s stupid enough to repeat the same mistake twice, right.
Repeat what mistake twice ?
And yes most people are that stupid
More of the problems with “common sense”
Even when common sense does give us usefully information
Common sense is not actually common in the sense that most people do not act according to common sense
Trump is correct
There does not exist to this day a connection between the trump campaign and the Russian government
If you took every claimed fact in your axioms article most of which are wrong as true
You still have nothing
One of the reasons we need precise language when discussing law is accuracy matters
Shooting an unarmed person is not 5he same as disarming an armed assailant
Collusion has no legal meaning
In the context of law what is referred to is likely conspriacy
Conspiracy requires an underlying crime
What is that crime ?
If it is the hackin* of the dnc
You have to prove they were hacked
You have to prove it was the Russians
You have to prove that 5he trump campaign was involved with the hacking before the fact
Trump could have met with Putin in 2016
That would not be collusion or conspiracy
But he did not
One of muellers problems is that he is trying to create the appearance of a coverup by catching people in false statements
That only works if there is something being covered up
Mueller can be pissed because manafort fought him and Cohen tried to play him
But that does not change the fact that all he has is that he either caught some in bad spin attempts or he played the same stupid nonsense you keep doing in pretending that there is some consequential discrepancy in someone’s statements to the fbi
Take Flynn
We can debate whether he lied
But there is zero doubt about what actually occurred
Kislyak called Flynn
That call was intercepted
Everything said was recorded
Parts of that were leaked and that is the worst crime in this whole mess
Regardless nothing in the Flynn kisylak call was improper or illegal
Every pretense o& a crime is based on what Flynn said about a legal communication
Not about the communication itself
Flynn was not charged with any crime related to the content of that call or accepting the call
Let’s say Flynn lied egregiously
Lying about a legal act is not a crime
It is not a conspiracy
My point is no5 about Flynn it is about the entire mess
Tripping people up in hundreds of hours o& interviews without reaching any substance is not merely not proof it is actual proof that what you are looking for did not happen
You require us to beleive that people sufficiently incompetent to get caught in small lies are so brilliantly devious that they all can continue to lie about the big crime without further slips
That no one will slip up
Or crack
Do you beleive 5hat ultimately Flynn told mueller everything he knows ?
Papadoulis ?
I doubt Cohen has to.d the truth
But he is protecting himself not 5he president
Do you think Cohen would not rat out trump in a minute
Particularly as trump has turned on him if Cohen had anything ?
To get to a crime you have to beleive that mueller already has proof
Not more innuendo
Or that proof does not exist because there was no crime
Or that every single person mueller has grilled is so loyal to trump they are prepared to go to jail for long periods
One of the problems with ad hominem is that when you use insulting lables and pronouns it is difficult to tell what you are talking about.
Plenty of people repeat the same mistake.
Socialism has been tried by millions of people over and over and failed – and yet AOC and Sanders want to try again.
There remains not merely no evidence of any criminal conspiracy between Russia and the trump campaign but much of the purported evidence actually makes such a conspiracy near impossible.
Trump has been bashed over the coals because he pulled out of the Paris Accords (or whatever that idiotic treaty was called). We now see France revolting because of gas taxes imposed on the people to fit into the accord and to show France as a leader in cutting CO2. I have been questioned and criticized because I supported Trumps move, and I support the French citizens in their efforts to reverse macrons decision.
Why? Look at this chart and tell me why should France and the USA be impacted negatively when the growth of CO2 through 2050 is completely China and India. Why would anyone sign an agreement that allows for this growth to continue while we have to reduce output. Note that in this chart the USA maintains at the current level or decreases slightly.
Please give me the reasoning from the lefts point of view that the Paris Accords was a good deal and why allowing China and India to almost double output over the next 30 years is a good thing? If global warming is so bad, does the Chinese and India CO2 impact warming differently than that of the USA? I don’t watch liberal news, so I do not understand the liberal point of view that this is a good thing.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Akrr%2bMdE&id=8B52C94D00C8A4DD6ADE306EBE37033C4F8C8C70&thid=OIP.Akrr-MdEmm6yvteFcQkjHwHaEW&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.eea.europa.eu%2fdata-and-maps%2ffigures%2fpast-and-projected-global-economic-output-1%2f20058_gmt5_fig1_global-economic-output.png%2fimage_original&exph=1204&expw=2048&q=projectdc+global+growth+of+CO2+chart+by+country&simid=608020741666768054&selectedIndex=24&ajaxhist=0
WRONG CHART EVERYONE. WILL TRY TO POST THE RIGHT ONE. DANG COMPUTERS!
Lets try this one if I can get it to post.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=amWFVAVB&id=FA8E8F206CCCFA7CC3EDBA31B98E2BFB9B3C717B&thid=OIP.amWFVAVBHTPMFlGwwfz71gHaEa&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fedmhdotme.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F03%2Fscreen-shot-2015-03-03-at-07-26-30.png%3Fw%3D630%26h%3D376&exph=376&expw=630&q=World+CO2+Emissions+by+Country&simid=607998227480905952&selectedindex=4&ajaxhist=0&pivotparams=insightsToken%3Dccid_S%252BsPgnoi*mid_7C67476237570CF9264458CEBA7BCB276F03B4CB*simid_608022266428984530*thid_OIP.S-sPgnoiE6!_Jrktf9NcZfQHaEN&vt=0&eim=1,2,6&iss=VSI
As the world becomes more industrialized, as the population of the planet keeps exploding, a horrible environmental catastrophe is inevitable.
Nothing will be done to prevent or counteract the disasters ahead: this is humaniy’s default response; rationalize, procrastinate until the catastrophe is upon us.
Mankind likely will survive, but in what numbers, under what kinds of government supervision, is anybody’s guess: one of those dystopian Mad Max-Thunder Dome scenarios is my gut reaction.
Luckily I won’t be around to suffer those deprivations of comfort; I will either have steeped myself into stupor (I’ve set aside a liquor cabinet of Costco’s Kirkland Irish Whiskey for that contingency) or suffered diabetic suicide via my new interest in homebaking orgisastic pastry treats: for any of you similarity inclined, here’s tonight’s recipe for Caramel Cheese Cake:
https://www.tasteofhome.com/recipes/chocolate-caramel-topped-cheesecake/
The population of the world will peak at 11B.
This is pretty well understood.
This is a pretty good video. It explains the mechanisms of population.
And why “sustainable” is stupid.
The world population was 3.5B when I was a child. hundreds of millions were dying of starvation. Paul Ehrlich told us all that global mass starvation was just arround the corner if we did not start mass sterilization.
The global population is headed towards 8B, Starvation today is radically reduced and solely the consequence of political conflict – mostly war.
Daily average food intake has nearly doubles, Standard of living has doubted.
Instead of things going to hell as population increased – they have improved.
Simon started predicting that things would get better as population increased rather than worse – just about the time of Ehrlich’s book – “the population bomb”.
In 1981 he published the first edition of “the ulitmate resource” – every prediction in it has come true.
“The Simon-Ehrlich Wager describes a 1980 scientific wager between professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. The widely-followed contest originated in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich’s published claim that “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, “to stake US$10,000 … on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.”
Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990 as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.”
Even today there is almost no raw material – or anything else, whose price is not government controlled that has risen after inflation over the long term – any long term.
The situation is even more dramatic with regard to production goods,
Raw materials and production goods measure completely different economic patterns with some overlap. But the fundimental reason for declining prices of both is the same.
Free exchange is the mechanism for converting scartity to abundance.
That is why standard of living rises.
Julian Simon is unfortunately dead. But he was a great environomental economist.
The Ultimate Resouce II is an incredible book – nearly 800 pages of facts that refute most every malthusian nonsense you have been taught.
Dear dumb dumb: you forgot to calculated the massive increase of industrial waste per person now, compared to when you were born. Those stats you quote on rising standards of living mean the rate of industrial pollution is rising astronomically as well, and will continue to increase as the industrialized world reaches 8 billion population.
Jay, I did not “forget” anything.
The vast majority of claims like that you just made are FALSE.
The US has almost no laws covering industrial recycling.
They are not needed. Businesses automaticallly recycle anything that they can recycle economically – and they have a large incentive to make things economical.
ALL industrial waste is a COST to business.
Even if a business can take industrial waste and produce a product from it that loses money.
That is still a savings over disposal.
Two of the top three sources of water polution in the US are GOVERNMENT. The third is agricultural runnoff. Industrial waste is not on the list.
There is a stream near the home I grew up at.
In the 60’s it stank, had raw sewage in it, Landfill runoff, agricultural pollution, ….
You could not see 2 inches. Today the water is clear and you can see the bottom.
In developed countries business waste is DECLINING.
It is increasing in devloping countries, but it will ultimately decline even in those as their standard of living rises high enough to afford a cleaner life.
When I was a kid there were junk yards all over the place.
Now they are nearly all gone. Why ? Because the US produces almost all its industrial metals from recycling. There is very little mining of Iron today it is easier and cheaper to produce steel by recycling.
I am sorry that Julian Simon’s book is so expensive. It should be required reading for every teacher spewing malthusian environmental nonsense.
ALL end of the workd claims – such as the irsing industrial waste are FALSE.
You have likely heard of the massive polution of the oceans by assorted plastics.
There have been several attempts to address that. The problem is not as large as claimed.
Regardless, plastic in the ocean is a RESOURCE.
Aside from all the public cheerleading there is quitely some FOR PROFIT efforts to “mine the oceans” for waste plastic. Those have proven economically viable and it is now estimated that withing 10 years the oceans will be free of most surface waste.
Absolutely everything is recyclable. Humans have been recycling since cave men.
There are two requirements before something gets recycled:
There must be a sufficient supply of waste to make the effort economically viable.
The cost to extract raw material from the waste stream must be lower than the cost to extract the same resource from nature.
These condictions will not always be met.
But they will ALWAYS be met by anything that becomes a serious problem.
BTW this is a more general rule of economics – it is called says law.
Or the law of supply and demand.
When something of value becomes scarce – market forces will ALWAYS make it abundant.
If you see the price of any commodity spike – you should BET the the price will drop to below where it was before the spike, that ALWAYS happens.
The next thing is that ANYTHING that is abundant and cheap – and that includes waste, will become a product.
These things are not only true – they are immutable.
“Dear dumb dumb: you forgot to calculated the massive increase of industrial waste per person now, compared to when you were born.”
Jay, your comment deserves no response from me other than…. Calling me “Dumb Dumb” because I question questionable treaties and actions to fix global warming is typical of Liberals when they can not provide documentation to their own arguments.
Or look at this chart and Tell me why we care ?
I never have. I believe that warming is a natural occurance for millions and millions of years. Back in the 70’s they were saying crops were going to die because of global cooling and we needed to do something to heat us up. One only needs to look at history (again that terrible word) and one will see periods of very high temps, then years of extreme volcanic activity followed by years of cooling. We are just in a period of low volcanic activity. But they are predicting Yelllowstone will blow someday, just like Mt St. Helens in Washington after eons of years of quite.
first and foremost I think that all malthusian fears are inherently flawed.
I do not think there is any reason that we should concern ourselves with CAGW, or future warming.
No should scientists ever have a special role in setting policy.
Science is supposed to be about establishing facts, NOT determining how we should respond to them.
Whether we are talking about climate, or drugs or …..
Scientists are free to engage in political advocacy – as private citizens.
As scientists they err when they leap from providing facts to determining whether and what should be done.
That said. Though I think the magnitude of the effect of human CO2 is vastly overstated, I strongly suspect that human CO2 has added to natural warming.
I strongly suspect that human land use changes have had an ever larger effect.
But land use has not become the focus of warmists because land use changes naturally and obviously regress to the norm.
So do the effects of CO2, but that is less obvious.
On TDS
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/06/measuring_the_medias_obsession_with_trump_138848.html#2
Right. And the media should’nt have fixated on the Great Deoression, and WWII, and they should have ignored Nixon-Agnew-Watergate too.
And those damn cartoonists should stop exaggerating the corrosiveness of the Trump administration too!
Non-sequitur.
The evidence in the article that I linked to is that the media obsession with Trump is 3 times that of Obama.
If you wish to claim that Trump is a disaster as significant as the great depression or WWII, then please – provide evidence of that.
I can go through a long list of things that are improving – with facts to support that.
Even those that were improving under Obama too, are improving faster.
I think Trump gets more credit for those improvements than he deserves. I also think there is a small probability that some of those may reverse, so taking credit is dangerous.
But there is ZERO doubt that things are NOT getting worse, that they are NOT even stagnant.
We have had the highest growth in INDUSTRIAL JOBS recently in a long long long time.
That is unprecidented.
Wages are finally starting to rise – 3.1% this past year, something that has not occured since 2008.
I can go on and on.
Life is not perfect. We can debate what ought to improve.
Who knows we might even agree.
But the assertion that Trump is a disaster is “objectively” false.
There is alot I do not like about Trump.
But it is still likely that he will prove to be as successful a president as Bill Clinton.
More successful than Either Bush or Obama. It is even possible though unlikely that he will match Reagan.
Does that mean that there is nothing to complain about ?
No.
But the scale of the complaints are totally disproportionate to reality.
I have no interest in censoring the press – or comics.
But they have lost touch with reality – and that is their problem.
I would note in some of the graphs in the article that FOX came off as far more “fair and balanced” than most of the rest of the media.
Another observation is that the “talking heads are news” narrative which was initially spawned by Fox, now owns the media.
The numebr and influence of actual reporters is strongly on the decline.
The recent Acosta flap is evidence of this.
Jim Acosta is not a whitehouse reporter.
He is and has chosen to be a celebrity talking head, using the white house briefing room as his government provided stage.
That is what the media has become.
There is little to distinguish Acosta from Hannity or Maddow, or Cooper.
The point is not that they are bad, but that we do not have reporters anymore.
I think your cartoon is excellent.
I do not hate Kelley. But I have always felt Trump’s reliance on “The generals” has been a mistake.
The military is responsible to tell us HOW to acheive our goals and objectives in a place like afghanistan. It is NOT there to tell us what those should be.
Americans want out of afghanistan. They wanted Obama to get us out.
Now they want Trump to.
We are long past any credible argument that our presence serves a purpose.
Even if there is a military solution – which I doubt, it requires a commitment or blood and gold that we are just not going to make.
We remain in afghanistan because against his better judgement Trump was persuaded by “the generals”.
All but mattis are now gone. Hopefully our policy will reflect that change.
Trump is governing as he ran his reality TV show and his business.
that is controversial, but it has worked for him.
And like it or not it is working for him in government.
Dave, As I have said many times, I did not vote for Trump nor would I consider voting for him in the future. But I saw today on the news exactly why so many people would vote for him. And why the left has TDS up the ass.
His meeting with Shumer and Pelosi was priceless. Sitting in front of the cameras telling them exactly what he thought and what he was going to do and why he was going to own it. When was they last time ANY president did that since Truman? Other than some stuff on the Nixon tapes where his discussions were taped and later released, I can not remember it happening.
And the Trump’ers love that stuff.
Trump was not particularly Eloquent. He is not Paul Ryan with a million facts on the tip of his tongue. But despite the critiques – he is not merely right on this, but he is right with his base and not offending any but the left.
I do not want to predict exactly how this will play out – except that Trump is going to have a huge problem politically if he backs down, so I think expecting him to do so is insantiy.
Contra the press I think Plosive and Schemer came across poorly.
They said they wanted to negotiate – but they did not. Further both were clearly caught of guard and did not want to negotiate in public. That is a huge win for trump.
There is really only one reason not to negotiate in public – because you do not have any actual argument.
We can dicker over the cost and effectiveness of a wall. But shutting down government over border security is credible. Shutting down government because you will not capitulate over what you claim is minor is not.
We all know why the wall is important to Trump. Right or wrong he is clear.
Pelosi and Schumer have failed miserably regarding why it is important to them.
According to AOC the military wastes $10T (the military is very very wasteful, but it is more like $1T/decade) regardless according to AOC that is enough to fund Single payer – which even left experts think will cost 32T/decade.
That is 6,000 times what the wall will cost.
I also noted that Trump went out of his way to celebrate reaching a deal on the Farm bill.
I do not want to know what that deal was. The farm bill is one of the worst porc fests their is.
But it is significant from a different perspective. If the farm bill is passed that significantly reduces what will be “shutdown”. Farm subsidies AND almost the entire social safety net – TANF, SNAP, Welfare is in the farm bill.
Trump has just challenged Pelosi and Schumer to renege on whatever deal was struck.
If they do not Trump can likely get through a “shutdown” with relatively easily.
I would also be careful about comparing any past shutdown to the present.
Republicans have been very busy – preparing.
First Most of the bills funding government have been passed – that is a major first. That has not happened in decades. That funding is secure. It is uneffected by a shutdown.
Next, the president has extremely wide discretion in a shutdown.
Obama went out of his way to use the shutdown to target things conservatives cared about.
Not only did Obama close federal parks, but he closed any state park that received government funds. Even ones willing to keep open on their own.
Trump can litterally do the opposite.
A significant portion of federal parks are PRIVATELY managed at a profit.
There is no requirement to close them.
And thbere are ways if Trump wanted to keep open most if not all federal parks.
The point is there is wide discretion for the president to dictate how a shutdown will play out.
The republican congress has been preparing for this, the whitehouse has been preparing for this. Schumer got his ass handed to him last time he tried.
I do not know how this will play out. I would not have predicted the way the Kavanaugh hearings played out. Near certainly they gave Trump 2 more seats in the Senate, and came close to giving him 4.
Trump brags about winning the senate – and that brag might be a bit hollow.
But a part of that brag is a challenge. The challenge is “You fought me on Kavanaugh, and you lost BIG”. And that was not predicted. Fight me on the border wall and the results could be the same.
I was surprised at taking responsibility for any shutdown. But I am still not sure that was not a sharp move. Regardless it was either smart or stupid. I would have predicted the fight over Kavanaugh was stupid for Republicans. But it proved smart.
Trump does far better politically when he picks a specific fight with narrow ground and owns it, and this is such a case.
The press is praising Pelosi. I think she came across badly.
She made later jokes about Trump’s “manhood”, but it seemed the manhood issue rests with Pelosi and democrats.
Put simply – Trump made a public argument for the wall. You can agree with it or disagree.
Pelosi and schumer did NOT make an argument for no wall. They made their argument solely on political power. That MIGHT win the day behind closed doors.
It does not in public.
“They said they wanted to negotiate – but they did not. Further both were clearly caught of guard and did not want to negotiate in public. That is a huge win for trump.”
Dave ,that is what I thought also. I find Trump to be unacceptible in many ways. But that unacceptibility is what makes times like this possible. I find someone who will say what he has on his mind in front of the TV and put Shumer and Pelosi in the hot seat refreshing. No political PR BS.
Trump may not be re elected. He may not even run. He may not want the lame duck, do nothing 4 years presidents get after the second term begins. Is foriegn relations important enough to him to run again because his domestic agenda will be done. Except for SCOTUS, nothing domestic will happen.
And, a nations economy is cyclical. Since 2008, we have been expanding. Whoever is elected in 2020 will most likely face the “natural” cyclical downturn in 2021-22. He knows that also. Let the next person take that arrow.
One of the difficulties with the large tilt of the press is you can not judge the truth of anything by press reporting – particularly the truth of impressions.
I did not view the video. I read the transcript.
Maybe the video was more hostile.
I though that the hostility in the transcript was entirely pelosi’s.
Pelosi wanted to fight over whether Trump had the votes he needed in the house.
It does not matter whether she is right. And frankly her claiming that she knows what current republicans will do is a bit over the top.
Trump ceded he does not have 60 votes in the Senate.
Pelosi’s entire argument was “you do not have the votes, you must concede”.
Trump’s argument essentially was – maybe, but I have the political support and the facts.
We can argue about whether Trumps facts were “perfect”, there is no argument that most people want democrats to give Trump the wall to avoid a shutdown.
Whether Trump has majority support for a wall or not, he has an overwhelming majority who do not want to fight about it.
He also has score a sort of win with the Caravan. He used the military to beef up the “wall” at the locations the caravans were looking to cross. It worked. As he noted many of those people have given up and gone home.
He proved that Walls work.
My fundimental objection to the wall would not be that it does not work. It would be that this is not who we are. But until the left is prepared to examine open borders and all the other things needed to have that, then there must be border security. In fact there must always be border security.
Anyway, my read of this was mostly a win by Trump.
I will bet money that Trump runs and is re-elected.
That is my read of the tea leaves.
Dave, maybe you are right. But I look at this and see where the Democrats will hold off any investigation and then when the campaign begins, they will begin impeachment proceeding in the house.
I can not see him getting that handful of votes in the three states he won that Clinton was suppose to win. And if he does not carry them, I dont see him getting reelected.
But I just wonder if he wants the lame duck years that presidents have that they are just a figure head in D.C. and they really have no voice. There have been some domestic accomplishments, such as Reagan and O’Neill working out a tax bill, but in today’s environment, there can not be much a second term president can do. I can not envision Trump being happy with not having any say.
(Well he would have plenty to say, but neither party would listen)
Impeaching Clinton did not work well for Republicans.
If Democrats wish to lose the house again, they can spend the next two years in Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Trump’s policies have HEAVILY targeted the rust belt.
Not only is the economy doing better than Obama it is doing the best in those place Trump needs to do well.
The US is adding over 100K manufacturing jobs – that is unheard of.
Trump’s tarriff talk, his wall talk, is all red meat to the voters in those states – particularly those blue collar democrats abandoned by democrats.
The actual cyclical business cycle is 3-4 years. and the cycle is small.
The boom/bust cycle is an artifact of government.
If the Trump boom is natural – i.e. it is the result of reduced regulation and in part reduced taxes, then it is sustainable. If it is unnatural – if it is a result of actions of government that have a one time effect or that distort investment, then there will be a bust.
Trump does best politically when there is a clear issue, When he has the right issue and stands fast. That worked for him With Kavanaugh.
I think he is counting on that now. I think he is right.
I would also note that a government shutdown serves him in other ways.
So long as the government shutdown fight is going on – other issues get less coverage.
This might be an effective way to drive the Mueller nonsense “off the front page”.
Trump was also pretty clear about 2019.
He told Pelosi – we can work together, or we can go to war – your choice.
While he took ownership of the shutdown. He placed ownership of failed government next year on her.
https://nypost.com/2018/12/09/why-no-hate-here-signs-are-actually-pretty-hateful/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/10/dems_decry_polarization_when_they_arent_promoting_it.html
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/muellers-investigation-is-missing-one-thing-a-crime/
His investigation has already produced convictions, and guilty pleas, dingleberry.
If you got caught in a rainstorm that filled up your galoshes with water, but a rain cap kept your head dry, you’d still be pontificating the pouring storm clouds overhead are inconclusive.
“His investigation has already produced convictions, and guilty pleas, dingleberry.
If you got caught in a rainstorm that filled up your galoshes with water, but a rain cap kept your head dry, you’d still be pontificating the pouring storm clouds overhead are inconclusive.’
Still substituting ad hominem for argument.
A huge portion of those “guilty pleas and convictions” are for essentially failing to be sufficiently cooperative.
I have a huge problem with bullying someone into a guilty plea for not cooperating to the extent you would like and then getting nothing of use from them after they do “cooperate”.
Regardless, as noted – I think every single person on the exhonerated list confessed.
A confession or guilty plea absent actual evidence of the purported crime that was plead to is meaningless.
In many states, you can not confess or plead guilty unless there is atleast a prima fascia case against you.
There are myriads of reasons for restrictions on Guilty please – including DOJ guidlelines that Mueller is oblifgated to follow, has promised to follow and has not followed
ranging from being an open invitation to prosecutorial misconduct – as we see here.
It is my understanding that Butina has finally plead – after spending many months in complete isolation in solitary confinement. In return for her guilty plea she gets to go home, and Mueller gets another fake notch on his belt.
And Putin gets to lock up more foreign students who protest his regime. As does every tin pot dictator in the world.
You rant how Trump is destroying our relations with the rest of the world.
Sorry Jay – that is Mueller.
Whatever you prosecute in the US – you have granted carte blanche to despots throughout the world.
Putin, Xi, have all been given green lights to savage political disent, to punish foreigners who express political views in their countries.
The US used to stand for freedom – free expression.
Mueller has us behaving exactly like the despots we complain about.
And you celebrate this.
Show me the man and I will show you the Crime – levanti Berria – or Robert Mueller ?
Whatever the law is – it must be the same for all.
If using lawyers to pay hush money is an illegal campaign contribution,
Then using lawyers to pay women to make accusations is too.
If your is a crime. the other is.
In truth NEITHER should be criminal or illegal.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/08/paying-stormy-daniels-crime-clinton-campaign-committed/
Its time for everyone to stop talking about crimes Clinton or her campaign may or may not have committed. The current people in appropriate positions could or should have already filed charges after an extensive investigation. That has not happened. One of two things happened.
1. No crime was ever committed.
2. The crimes were overlooked based on the unwritten Washington policy where crimes of your predecessor are overlooked since you want the same treatment once you leave office.
Whatever the reason, its been 2 + years. Government is not fair. Life is not fair. Both never will be.
Ron,
Your thesis is wrong.
One of the ways that we can tell whether our law enforcement is politically corrupt is by whether it handles similar facts and allegations in the same fashion.
We know that Clinton lied to congress. We know that her lies were much more significant than Cohen’s.
We know that Clinton as well as her cronies lied to the FBI, We know that evidence was destroyed and we know the testimony about that sequence of events was false.
The most fundimental question is NOT whether Clinton and her cronies are innocent or guilty of some crime.
But whether our law enforcement system is politically corrupt.
When it handles the same conduct and facts significantly differently based on the target – then it is irredemably corrupt.
It does not even matter what the law is.
There is no incorrupt system that produces the current outcome.
Either both Clinton and Trump should be charged and convicted as well as everyone associated with them, or neither. OR at the very least some substantial distinction needs to be made.
For me – the allegations regarding Trump are all remote. Trump did not personally do any of this. Trump did not associate with Klimitov, Mifsud, ….. I do not beleive there is even a claim that Trump directed any of these things. It is possible to beleive that, but there is no evidence of it. Further Trump’s actions were as a private individual.
Clinton personally made the choices regarding her emails. Clinton lied to congress. And she did so as a public servant.
Cohen is facing a sentencing enhancement because he is an attorney. That is appropriate.
We should hold Lawyers to a higher Standard regarding crimes. And we should hold public servants to a higher standard still and those in law enforcement to the highest standards.
Tony Soprano’s crimes are of less consequence than misconduct be those in government.
Dave, America picked an individual that highlighted Clintons illegal activities. He ran on ” lock her up”. Voters who voted for Trump expected at least an investigation leading to charges. They expected the courts to decide. Someone got to Trump and convinced him not to proceed.
We are now a country of pick and choose which laws different people will follow. Your example is one. How illegals are addressed is another. So now you can.pick which kaw you dont want to follow!
Ron, Dem voters in large numbers wanted Trump impeached, then prosecuted, jailed. If House Dems don’t work to impeach him starting in January, and if a Dem wins the Presidency in 2020, they should follow-thru on those majority wishes, and you’ll applaud them, correct?
I want to address “life is not fair”.
You are making my argument.
The disparity regarding Clinton/Trump is atleast partly a “fairness” argument – sort of.
More accurately it is an equality argument – all claims regarding fairness are ultimately some form of argument about equality.
Almost all arguments regarding equality should fail (with respect to government), because equality is at best aspirational and always imperfect, and frankly often NOT desirable.
All arguments save ONE, that is equality before the law.
While even that is ultimately aspirational – we can not acheive perfect equality.
It is still absolutely critical.
Failure of equality before the law – is not about Trump vs. Clinton.
It is about government itself.
If we decide that the assorted actions of Clinton and cronies should escape punishment, we MUST apply the same standard universally to the best of our abilities.
In reality we should change the law.
But whether we do so or not, applying the same laws substantially differently in one case vs. another is unacceptable. It is LAWLESS.
We have a whole slew of people – both in the formal clinton camp, and in the Obama administration and in DOJ and FBI and CIA and NSA who have done the same or worse than any of those Mueller has destroyed.
This is not even a close call.
Jay linked to David French. I generally like French.
But his article is ludicrous – the “proof” this is not a hoax is a collection of hearsay, an innuendo. Not only that it is bad hearsay and innuendo – even if it was all true – which it is not, much of it actually refutes the collusion claim.
Clinton and cronies lied to congress and under oath about criminal acts.
We can argue about the significance of those crimes. Though I think the Chinese government getting the secretary fo states classified emails in real time is pretty significant. Much more then Trump/Russia collusion even if true.
Regardless, Clinton and her people lied about crimes significant or otherwise.
They also lied about government actions. They lied about government itself.
That is far more significant than any purported lie Mueller has come up with.
Next, and more important – those in DOJ/FBI have been lying.
Lies within government are more significant than those outside.
Lies within law enforcement are the most significant.
Horrowitz asserts that McCabe lied on four separate occasions – either under oath or to FBI investigators.
Horrowitz has also asserted that on several issues either McCabe or Ohr or someone else is lying – or Comey is lying. There are numerous statements of Comey to congress that are more consequential misrepresentations than ANYTHING that ANYONE associated with Trump is accused of.
When those in government in law enforcement are lying – under oath or in investigations the rule of law is gone. We have the rule of man.
And that is the core here.
The only form of equality we are entitiled to is equality before the law.
When we do not have that – we are lawless.
And that is the core – it is not about fairness, it is about the rule of man rather than the rule of law.
Trump: “A talent for repulsion”
Dave, seriously, I think you should apply for the job. You’d be a natural at it.
Anyone watch any of the Congressional Google hearing today? Its like watching dinosaurs trying to swim in the La Brea Tar Pits. Those guys need to let their grand kids asked the questions if they want to know whats going on!
I did not watch them.
But there are multiple was to deal with social media – none of which require congress.
1). Section 302 excempts social media from content related lawsuits – like defamation CONDITIONAL on their not censoring content.
It is time for conservatives to sue google and twitter for defamatory content posted by those on the left. It will not be hard to find something sufficiently offensive.
Just filling the case will allow discovery against social media with respect to whether they censor. That alone would likely be devastating. They would have to defend all their content based filtering and prioritization models, and there is just no way that those do not offend someone.
2). Move. These are not the only alternatives out there.
I have a gab account. I do not use it. But if a few of those I follow on Twitter moved I would.
Twitter and FB have been very effectively driving conservatives to GAB.
This could be ground zero of the civil war fought without guns. and a lesson in economics and political action for the children on the left.
There is no doubt that the young left owns social media.
But I keep telling people here over and over that for something to be normative – it requires supermajority support.
There is not a large internet company that can afford a permanent 2% loss of users.
Google, FB and Twitter could rapidly find themselves between a rock and a hard place.
They will not be able to keep those on the right – without abandoning political censorship.
They will not be able to keep those on the left without preserving it.
They are in a lose lose.
And I think that is a good thing.
Goggle FB and twitter will survive, but their monopoly will be seriously weakened.
And even if they capitulate to the left, they are highly likely to quietly change their approach.
It only takes a very small loss of users to cripple a big business.
Dave, again you missed the point. I could care less what Twitter, Google or Facebook do. If they find something interesting about me, fine, go for it. I use Google for not much. Twitter maybe once a week to read a couple accounts. Facebook to look at friends post. Not much different here than those who only listen to Maddow on MSNBC or Hannity on Fox.
MY POINT! The ancient seniors that have no idea between the difference in an Iphone or Android, an Ipad v Fire, etc. that make idiots of themselves asking stupid questions of social media CEO’s that the ir grand kids are probably cringing when they hear them.
I understand your point.
My point was that they do not need to.
There is no reason for the law to get involved.
First people can manage this on their own.
Beyond that – technology DOES NOT CHANGE LAW!
At best it exposes the flaws of past laws. It never requires new laws. It often pushes us towards less laws.
The left is whigging out at the moment because Trump is eviscerating Obama’s “waters of america” regulations.
These were near certainly unconstitutional.
We are back to the nonsense of idiocy like if some migratory bird lands on a puddle on your property that is a justification for the federal government to regulate the crap out of you.
We survived 150 millenia without laws regarding the environment.
Most of the improvement in air quality PRECEDED the clean air act, Most of the improvement in water quality preceded the clean water act. As much as we rant about China and india, even there things are actually improving – without draconian regulations, as peoples standard of living rises. Just as has happened everywhere.
The left seems to think that if the waters of america regulations are repealed – the world will come to an end, that toxic chemicals will be dumped into our water supply that people will die. Regulations that did not take effect until 2015. So things will AT WORST go back to where they were 3 years ago. The HORRORS !
Actually less than that because no real enforcement has occured and most people they apply to have not had time to try to comply. So really the only thing that will happen is those regs will NOT become a burden.
But “Oh My! The Sky is falling!”
What I see in this EO is a directive to insure regulations are consistent through out the act and that they are consistent with Scalia opinion written in 2015.
But when we make government regulations consistent, you are probably going to impact clise to 25% of all government jobs.
Yes, the sky is falling fir those that have a job because of inconsistencies in regulations.
Jay, my comment @10:28 re “Dumb Dumb. Was linked to my comment about global warming. E-mail came through “In reply to Ron P. then my comment, then your dumb dumb comment. Guess that was for something you and Dave are arguing about.
Sorry. for my comment.
I see where California is proposing a tax on text messaging. To be used to provide services to underserved areas. Interesting since looking at coverage maps of California shows very little area where there is not good coverage already. Looks like another way to increase taxes on something and use funds for other things.
For those offended by “Baby its Cold Outside”, here is another list provided by a committee of diverse individuals that found other Christmas Carols offensive and the reasons for asking they not be played any more.
“Santa Clause is Coming to Town” = Fake News, there is no Santa!
“Little Drummer Boy” = Sexist. there are also girl drummers
“White Christmas” = Can be Racist, all indviduals enjoy Christmas
“O’ Come all Ye Faithful” = Promotes a religious belief that non believers do not believe
“God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” = Why single out just men at this time?
“All I Want for Christmas is You” = #MeToo finds this stalking
“The 12 Days of Christmas” = Rich sugar daddy buying love, unfair to poor
” The 8 Days of Christmas:” = Another sugar daddy with racial overtures (Who can give CLK Mercedes for Christmas?)
“Santa Baby” = Reverse #metoo and exploits handouts
“Let it Snow” = Not everyone wants snow! Many hate it!
“Do You Hear What I Hear” = insensitive to hearing impaired
“All I Want for Christmas is My Two Front Teeth” = offensive to those who have lost all their teeth. They need more than just the front two.
And last but not least….
“I Saw Mommy Kissing
Santa Claus” = promotes adultery
NOW EVERYONE, HAVE A WONDERFUL CHRISTMAS AND REMEMBER THIS LIST WHEN THOSE TUNES ARE ON YOUR RADIO!
I think “baby its cold outside” is a pretty weak Christmas song.
When I was younger the right was trying to ban The Witches of Blackbird pond.
Now when I google book bans all hits are the left trying to ban the right.
It’s basic: if you tell someone to commit a felony and they do, you’ve committed a felony..
I heard it on Fox, from a conservative …
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-judge-napolitano-we-now-know-trump-committed-a-felony
If whatever is going on is true and what the judge states is true, then impeachment could begin anytime in 19. But that wont happen. 6 months for hearings total sent to senate in summer 19 and trial rejects charges, people have 12 months to “forget and move on”. Dems will wait until early 2020 to impeach so it is the key campaign issue.
I agree with your assessment…
Congress can impeach for absolutely any reason at all. Even completely stupid reasons.
Congress is answerable to the people in elections.
If House democrats wish to spend the next two years pushing these stupid narratives – that is their own business and voters will reward or punish them in 2020.
This is also why this NEVER should have been an FBI/DOJ investigation.
There is not to this day sufficient basis for a criminal investigation. Not by Strzok, not by Mueller. There remains no specific crime alleged with any merit. And the few that are now alleged were NOT the basis for the investigation.
Meaning the investigation itself was illegitimate.
Congress can do this. DOJ/FBI can not. Nor can Mueller.
Yes, Congress can impeach for stupid reasons, like for lying about a blow job. Or for reasonable reasons, like authorizing an illegal break-in.
Impeachment for a campaign finance violation is unreasonable; but impeaching for pathological lying, for conduct and behavior detrimental to the office, for unsavory prior business practices that have come to light post-campaign – indignant impeachment is Required!
Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton
Article I
Perjury before a grand jury.
Article II
Perjury in a sworn affidavit and in a deposition.
Article III
Obstruction of justice
Asking others to file false affidavits,
and give false testimony,
Providing inducements such as a job for doing so.
Article IV
Abuse of power
Mostly because he provided perjurious answers to questions submitted to him by the judicial committee and made frivilous claims of executive priviledge.
———————————
No where in there is “lying about a blow job”.
Perjury is not just lying. It is lying under oath.
As to your list of reasons that the house can impeach – absolutely correct.
The house can impeach because Trump has bad breath if it wants.
It can impeach because they think he is an alien spawn.
The only limit to the grounds the House can use to impeach is the consequences they face in the next election.
As Newt Gingrich about that.
As to your specific allegations – the house can impeach for them. But it can not prove any of them, because they are false.
I would further suggest – though the house may hold hearings and may rail and rant.
It is highly unlikely they will actually impeach.
Democrats in the house are not going to subject themselves to the same legal standards as you wish to claim apply to Trump.
It is self evident that your arguments are nonsense.
Your only response is a claim to power.
The excerise of raw lawless power never ends well.
And no impeachment is not required for any of this.
In fact every single claim you make is political not high crimes and misdemenaors, and as such is really the purview of the electorate.
Trump was elected by voters. The decision on political matters is theirs. Not congresses.
Impeachment without the support of a super majority of the people is unbeleiveably dangerous. Again ask Newt Gingrich.
Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon.
Article I
6 Attempting to use the CIA against political enemies.
Article II
1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
Article III
Failed to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
Each of these has occurred under the Obama administration. As well as several other watergate parallels including political surveilance of enemies and the press.
Just to be clear I can come up with real crimes specific to Obama – ones as noted in a prior post that exactly match the Nixon articles of impeachment.
We know that the IRS was used as Nixon tried during the obama administration.
That is an established fact. Aside from targeting the IRS at political groups based on viewpoint, numerous individual tax returns were acqured by Louis Lehrner forwarded to attorneys in DOJ and subsequently leaked to the press.
The crime is certain – beyond any doubt. All that is unclear is who all the guilty parties are.
Yet there was no DOJ investigation, and no special counsel.
Next we KNOW that Obama asked for an investigation of the Trump campaign in late 2015. Peter Strzok has documented that. It is highly unusual for the president to ask for an investigation. Though Trump has tweeted questioning why all kinds of people have not been investigated, he still to this day has not actually officially requested any investigation.
We know that Obama signed the EO that unconstitutionally and illegally expanded greatly access to classified intelligence and the number of people who could request unmasking.
Just to be clear unmasking is quite serious – it is required to be dealt with quite carefully – both by the law and the constitution. Why ? Because the surveilance that our national security aparatus engages in constitutes a search, and constitutionally a US person can not be searched without a warrant. The shell game that has been played since 2001 is that so long as the identities of US persons are protected we can legally pretend there was no search of that person and therefore no rights violated. This is also why a FISA warrant is required to use the national security aparatus to conduct a “search” of US persons.
Unmasking of a US person destroys the fiction that there was no warrantless search.
So we have a huge problem there – by opening access and reducing the standards for unmasking the Obama administration enabled broad political surveilance during an election.
Again similar to the Nixon articles of impeachment – except much bigger.
And there is zero doubt of his one and this one leads directly to Obama.
As to the investigation itself – the law and the constitution do not permit “witch hunts”.
They do not permit indentifying someone as criminal and then searching for the crime.
If you do not have probable cause that a crime was committed – you do not have an investigation. If you do not have probable cause that a specific person has evidence of that crime you may not subpeona.
To this date probable cause of any crime involving the Trump campaign and Russia still does not exist. almost 3 years after the investigation started we do not have sufficient evidence to start and investigation.
That is a serious violation of the law and the constitution.
There is almost no doubt regarding the information that DOJ/FBI had – they put everything in the Carter Page warrant application – and most of that is public, and what has not been made public is purportedly even more damaging to the FBI than what has been made public.
Not that the Page warrant is the state of the art of what DOJ/FBI has in October of 2016.
And that information is false and they new it at the time. There was not sufficient true information for a warrant in Oct 2016. So how was their sufficient to start and investigation in 2015, to run spies against Carter Page and Papadoulis and probable Stone and Corsi in 2016 ?
Except the fact that Obama used the DOJ/FBI/CIA how is this not the same as what nixon did with watergate ?
There is only a single issue with any hope of making this not MUCH WORSE THAN WATERGATE. And that is does some justifiaction for an investigation exist that we do not know of. One of the documents that Nunes wants declassified is the Peter Strock memo of justification for the investigation from 2015. Nunes and some members of the house has seen this, but it remains classified. Remember that in late 2015 there was no steele dossier – Steele had not been hired yet. There was no DNC hacking – that had not occured, There were no russian facebook adds. Flynn Page and Papadoulis and Manafort were not part of the campaign yet. Nothing we are arguing about its significance existed then.
So what did ?
Tell me what separates Nixon from Obama – except that the FBI told Nixon NO!
“:It’s basic: if you tell someone to commit a felony and they do, you’ve committed a felony..”
Napolitono is actually a libertarian not a conservative.
There is no Felony in any of this. Even if the left’s idiotic argument about Campaign finance were true – it is not a felony. It is not even typically a crime.
HRC absolutely unequivicallly violated federal records keeping laws. She KNEW she was doing so. She actually conspired to do so. There were no charges filed because doing so is just not a crime, or if it is, it is a relatively trivial one – like a parking ticket.
If you wish to elevate the magnitude of those offenses – change the law.
All the above assumes that campaign finance laws were violated – and they were not.
It is very tiring to face this garbage from you and the left arguing about made up law.
This is quite simple – if your ludicrously broad understanding of campaign finance law is correct – which it is not. Then:
Every single member of congress is atleast as guilty as Trump.
In fact the actual house of representatives is doubly guilty for paying off women harrassed by congressmen. So are you saying that the federal government – the house of representatives has committed a campaign finance law felony by paying hush money to people who were actually harrased by congressmen ?
If the law were that broad – it would be unconstitutionally broad.
Whether the law is broad or narrow if it applies to NDA’s it is unconstitutional as it violeates the first amendment.
So we have four completely independent reasons this claim is just plain ludicrously stupid.
Directing someone to not commit a crime is not commiting a crime.
Directing someone to commit a made up crime is not committing a crime.
I will further note even without all the above problems – you still run afoul of the Comey/Clinton problem – only in a context it actually applies.
Comey was incorrect that 18cfr793(f) required criminal intent.
He was also unfortunately incorrect that intent is an element of all federal crimes.
Republicans have been trying to pass legislation making intent a default element for every federal crime that does not explicitly dictate that intent is not required – 18cfr793(f) is explicitly a crime of neglegence and recklessness – that is the crime that would apply to clinton’s email.
Campaign finance violations are not crimes of recklessness or negligence – just to be clear, a crime of recklessness and negligence is one where the law does NOT require intent.
Absent proof that Trump and Cohen’s actions were a deliberate and knowing attempt to violate the law, there is no intent – and according to James Comey no crime.
Given that NO ONE has ever successfully been prosecuted for this ludicrously stupid claim – even though it occurs all the time. Given that there has only been one attempted prosecution ever. It is reasonable for Trump and Cohen to beleive their actions were legal.
This entire debate is ludicrous.
It is particularly ludicrous because there are far more egregious things you are ignoring.
As I noted before – the FEC has determined that something like 80M in clinton campaign donations were by donors that had exceeded the federal limits.
That is far more serious than this nonsense about spiking stories and NDA’s.
But the real problem here is that campaign finance laws – even understood narrowly, are just plain unconstitutional.
The federal government may not pass laws that impede the free speach of others.
Nor can the federal government pass laws compelling speach.
Almost every possible activity regarding an election is about speach. All laws regarding the actions of candidates, and donors in an election must meet strict scrutinty requirements.
And they can not.
Dear Mouth Who Bores – you don’t get to determine what’s a felony or what isnt; the courts/judges/law enforcement decide that.
More insults instead of argument
No! The courts DO NOT get to decide what a Felony is.
They get to decide whether the facts presented match the elements perscribed by the legislature.
And even the Legistature does not have unlimited scope in determining what constitutes a felony. If they exceed the powers given to them by the constutition, then the courts can decide that what the legislature defined as a fellony isn’t.
What can NEVER happen – without violating the rule of law, is for the courts to call something a fellony that the legislature did not, or for the legislature to violate our rights in promulgating law.
The claim you are making is quite littlerly exactly what John Adam’s warned us about.
It is the rule of man, not the rule of law. It is lawless, it is immoral, and it always fails.
This is not merely my view. It is the view of pretty much all our founders.
It is the view of the vast majority of supreme court justices ever.
It is the view of real “liberals” not modern leftist sychophants.
And “law enforcement” is supposed to have absolutely no role in that.
Again part of what is wrong with Mueller.
It is not the role of the police OR the courts to expand the law beyond what the legislature clearly established.
If the legislature was NOT clear – then the law must either be interpretted narrowly or declared void. The courts have the power to void law. They do not have the power to make it or to broaden it.
Aparently you failed civics in high school – or you got a clueless lefist teacher.
Regardless you are advocating for lawlessness.
Just to be clear in your legal theory, we find out that we are felons when a police officer arrests us or when the court decides that our actions constitute a felony.
There is no real need for laws – because in your world law enforcement and the courts get to make it up as they go along.
Get a clue. That is not how things work.
If you want my agreement that things do not always work as they are supposed to – fine you got it.
Absolutely legislatures make unconstitutional and immoral laws.
Law enforcement arrests people on manufactured claims of violations of the law – people even plead guilty to things that are not crimes, Courts find the law much more broad than it is or should be and do not universally reject overly broad applications of the law.
But all those are FAILURES of our legal system. They are not merely constitutional and legal failures – both of which are true. But they are serious MORAL failures, and practical failures.
Because that arrangement is lawless. That is quite litterally the legal system of the USSR.
It is also the legal system that Englishmen rebelled against and forced the Magna Carte on King John. It is the legal system that our founders rebelled against in the decalration of independence.
We can not acheive perfection – though we should strive for it.
But the greater the lawlessness in our legal system the greater the likelihood of systemic failure.
Trumps election was pushback at least in part against that kind of stupidity.
I can not tell you that if you manage to get rid of Trump illegitimately, that you will immediately get something worse. But I can tell you that until the left fixes the problems within itself that resulted in Trump, there will remain a large risk of getting significantly worse than Trump.
So we now have an army of differnet groups asserting that hush money is not a campaign contribution – two former FEC heads advised John Edwards of theat. A recent former head is saying the Daniels payments are not, And to ice the cake the extrmely left leaning group CREW actually filed briefs arguing that the hush money in the Edwards case was not campaign contributions.
The hypocracy of the left – the gift that just keeps on giving.
You are circling the drain on this.
The Edwards case is much closer to a campaign contribution than Trump’s NDA’s.
Edwards did not get an NDA, the amounts were much larger, the money actually came from the campaign. Trump has a past history of seeking NDA’s
https://nypost.com/2018/12/13/sorry-but-hush-money-payments-wont-send-trump-to-prison/
I have made some of them – but there are so many arguments against this nonsense regarding the Cohen plea Mark Penn lays out several more.
Beyond the NDA the Mueller claim that the National Inquirer spiking a story is a campaign contribution would have massive implications if it was actually the law.
It would make all political op-eds into campaign contributions, it would make political reporting nearly impossible. It would put the FEC in charge of what stories a paper could run or not.
Penn notes that NBC did not release the Billy Bush tape – was withholding it a campaign contributio ? But the tape was leaked by and insider – was that a campaign contribution ?
The fundimental problem is that Campaign finance law is just a very bad idea to begin with.
It is inherently a violation of the First Amendment to constrain or require reporting of political contributions.
But that becomes massively more obvious when legal thugs like mueller invert it and try to convert speach into regulated money.
The campaign contribution is NOT the payment to Daniels or by the national enquirer.
That is a private transaction that has nothing to do with the political campaign.
The campaign contribution is the value attributed to spiking the story or to Daniels agreeing not to speak. What is being regulated is quite clearly decisions about speech.
The first amendment is being pillaged and raped.
But this pretense that the speech can be regulated – if not directly, indirectly is common disgusting fodder of the left.
https://itk.thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/420523-cohens-pleas-concocted-by-prosecutors-to-snare-trump
I can hear you shouting “Fox! Fox! Fox!” already.
But I tripped over this searching for FEC chair interviews.
So this is an interview of a former FEC chair and a democratic lawyer – who BOTH say there is nothing there.
The FEC chair notes that not only is this the FEC position – but it has been their PUBLIC position for several decades. That for a criminal conviction for campaign finance fraud both KNOWING and WILLFUL are required. And you can not claim that either Trump or Cohen knew that they were acting illegally when there is a long history of the FEC saying this is legal
When you read the media claiming that deVoss and the Trump DOE are evil women haters you should note that even the California Appelate courts are on her side.
The left knee jerk criticises everything Trump does without any thought.
Just to be clear this is an example of something that looks really bad.
I am pretty sure it is not a crime, it is not obstruction of justice and it is not destruction of evidence. Unless the IG investigation had already started at the time the iphone was wiped in which case it IS all of the above.
But no matter what it is an example of something that looks really bad, but isnt.
I would like those ranting about Trump to explain why this is different from The Stormy Daniels NDA. Just like the NDA it deprived both investigators and the public information about the bad conduct of someone – in trumps case someone NOT in government, in Muellers case someone in the government which would make it worse.
I here this impossible argument that the NDA violates campaign finance laws.
Trump paid for the NDA, that makes it not a campaign contribution, but even if it was, Trump is not limited in what he can contribute to his own campaign. I would also suspect that he need not disclose his own contributions to he own campaign. It is probably unconstitutional to require him to disclose contributions to his own campaign. But even ignoring that – the violation become merely one of disclosure. And that raises another fundimental problem.
If disclosure is required, then campaign finance law has just made all NDA’s by politicians impossible – disclosure would make the NDA itself worthless. The purpose of an NDA is to prevent information from becoming public.
So do you really think that the courts are going to allow a law to bar conduct that was never the target of the law ? That is pretty much the text book definition of over broad.
When a law makes illegal conduct that was never intended by the lawmakers to be made illegal.
But back to Mueller – why doesn’t this violate federal record keeping statues ?
So is millers office guilty of a crime ? A felony ?
http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/13/doj-destroyed-missing-strzok-page-text-messages-before-ig-reviewed-them/
Aparently this gets worse.
Strzok’s phone was scrubbed AFTER some of his biased texts were exposed and AFTER he was removed from the SCO investigation.
Once the SCO knew of the issues regarding Strzok, and determined there was sufficient merit to remove him from the SCO this becomes destruction of evidence.
Mueller and his team are culpable
Worse still according to the SCO they reviewed Strzok’s texts prior to wiping the phone and determined there was no need to preserve them. Strzok was dismissed from the SCOs office because some of his texts revealing bias had been made public and the SCO decided to destroy the evidence of those texts ?
There is actual records preservations laws that would apply. Beyond that Strzok was already the center of controversy. At the very least Strzok might be subject to discipline within the FBI and the texts would be evidence. Had those texts been exculpatory rather than inculpatory, the SCO would have been violating Strzoks rights and depriving him of evidence to defend himself. Given that they were inculpatory the SCO was depriving FBI of evidence in any disciplinary proceding against Strzok. The SCO office itself had determined that there was sufficient merit to the claims regarding Strzok to dismiss him.
Just to be clear Strzok was not an ordinary agent – he was the highest ranking FBI agent in Russian counter intelligence.
Apparently Page’s phone is worse. She turned it over to the SCO on her departure. It was scrubbed – but there is no record of its being scrubbed. No one at SCO’s office examined it.
It was just turned over to the OIG when requested having been completely wiped. Without explanation, without examination.
Yes, lets talk about how well climate social engineering is going ?
http://reason.com/archives/2018/12/13/will-uprisings-thwart-green-central-plan
Harsanyi’s critique of the parkland/politifact nonsense demonstrates the political bias of poitifact. Aside from magnifying a fringe act to lie of the year they went further and smeared anyone who criticized Hogg’s group for any reason. that is politics not fact checking.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/13/heres-problem-politifacts-lie-year/
What this article fails to note is that Bill Clinton was tied to now Bankrupt Corithn collage that is at the core of this disaster.
https://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2018/09/04/devos_right_to_suspend_lax_loan-forgiveness_policy_110294.html?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation
There are just so many things wrong with the Flynn interview.
While Flynn is making a big deal out of the fact he was told he did nto need a lawyer, what is more significant is that he was told he was being briefed of new security procedures NOT interviewed. Of course he did not need a lawyer for a briefing. Government agents are allowed to lie, but not in a way that deprives a defendant of their rights.
But there is a bigger issue which I do not think Flynn is raising.
The law regarding the criminality of lying to a government agent requires that the lie must mislead the investigator. In otherwords “perjury traps” are not permitted by law.
The government can not interview someone asking about things they already know and then accuse them of lying because they do not get the details right.
That is improper because it is a tactic that will work against anyone given enough time.
I beleive Mueller interviewed Corsi for 70 hours.
Strzok had the transcript of the Flynn Kislyak exchange at the time.
There was no reason for questions. Strzok already had the answers.
This article suggests some impropriety at Flynn having conversations with Kislyak during the transition – that is bunk. Even Obama’s people had contact with foreign government during the transition.
Regardless if we are going to play logan act games – why isn’t john kerry in jail ?
He has been going to Iran and telling the mullahs to wait until after 2020 when Trump is no longer president. How is that not the most egregious possible violation of the logan act ?
The logan act is so unconstitutional no one has ever tried to prosecute anyone under it.
The fact the Mueller ever mentions it demonstrates bias and political corruption.
But there is another issue here.
We have numerous people who were involved – including Strzok, and Comey that Flynn did not lie. We do not get to play games shopping for prosecutors until we find one that will stretch the law to suit our ideology.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-14/christie-is-said-to-be-trump-s-top-candidate-for-chief-of-staff
Trump’s approval rating is the same as Obama’s at this point in his presidency.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll-obama-popularity/
What foreigners think of Trump
https://harpers.org/archive/2019/01/donald-trump-is-a-good-president/
Dave, you keep posting information by investigative reporters that support “apparent” illegal activities by members of legal division, political parties and cadidates. This has been going on for months, if not years.
Non of this “apparent” illegal activity is going anywhere. Much of the information “appears” to be creditable.goi
If Woodward and Berstein were to write their Watergate articles in todays environmental, Nixon would have completed his term in office and their articles would have ended up on the shelf just like those today.
From the President to the illegal immigrant just crossing the border, following the law in America today is not a requirement. One can pick and choose which they find important and which ones to follow. That seems to me to be the first steps toward revolution or civil war.
And pick and choose how important it is for a president to be moral.
Importance of President Providing Moral Leadership for the Country, by Political Party, During the Clinton and Trump Administrations
(How important do you think it is for the president to provide moral leadership for the country?)
Very Important:
In % points:
Clinton. Trump. Change
U.S. adults 72 66 -6
Republicans 86 63 -23
Independents 69 62 -7
Democrats 64 77 +13
Figures are the percentage who say it is “very important.” Clinton data based on an average of four polls conducted between 1994 and 1999. Trump data based on May 1-10, 2018, poll.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/235022/presidential-moral-leadership-less-important-republicans.aspx
Jay, so true and so sad for this country. From the high moral leadership of 41 through the blow job in the White House and subsequent coverage of that, we now have people willing to choose individuals such as Trump to be president. I stand by my many comments that had the parties had closed primaries where only those individuals registered as democrat or republican can vote, and had those primaries provided the bulk of the delegates, I have serious doubts that Clinton or Trump would have been the candidates in 2016. Clinton would not have had super delegates to give her a huge support at the beginning, causing Sanders to be handicapped from the beginning and Trump would have had few “never voters”, red neck southern independents and blue collar democrats to give him a shove in the first few primaries.
But since the late 1990’s, the moral decay in this country is staggering. No longer can one express an opinion without being called a racist, xenophobe, assh^&*, idiot, Dumb S&^* and a host of other names. No longer are laws a law that are expected to be followed. No longer are kids disciplined in school, they are “counselled” to make better choices. Dont like freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, just pass a law infringing on those rights that many will ignore. No longer is the truth important, just make up shit that most people will believe, from the President on down to the small local newspaper editorials.
But the most concerning? Few care anymore unless it impacts them directly.
Ron;
I try to be more careful about broad generalizations particularly about the past and the changes since the past.
LBJ is not someone I would like emulated – nor even Kennedy or Nixon.
There are some very specific areas in which we have had serious failures – even moral breakdowns, And there are others where we have made great strides.
The lefts efforts to label half the country as racist, homophobic, xeonphobic mysoginists is absolutely ludicrous looking at the tremendous improvements that have occured in all of these. during my life time.
There are many many many ways in which we are much more moral than a generation ago.
But there are also ways in which we have horribly failed. We have substantially damaged the family, and erroded some very important values. And this damage has had its cost.
And that cost has mostly been paid by those at the bottom.
We need to look at where we are and figure out how to move FORWARD, not back.
A major facet of the election of 2016 was a backlash against the lefts vision of what we needed to do.
As an example a significant determining factor in the election was the judgement of voters – that in light of improvements over the past several decades – race, gender, sexual orientation are NOT the pre-eminent areas that we need to focus on further improvement.
While producing so that we can raise our standard of living, and more and better jobs are a more significant focus.
Gilliam as an example appears to have lost to desantis, because 300,000 black single mothers with kids in charter schools voted for the white guy who was not going to shutdown their kids best chance at doing better than they have, instead of the black guy who promised more free things and at the same time promised to kill their childrens oportunity.
Dave, you have a much greater appreciation for your fellow “man” (used in the same context as the founding fathers in the DoI and Constitution) than I have. From changes in kids that bullied in school and at worst made others cry, today the kids bully to the point those being bullied commit suicide. From adults that basically avoided issues they disagreed with , to today, where most anyone that disagree use any form of slurs and put downs whil argueing thir point
Yes, moral behavior in politicians has always been bad, but in most cases they were held closer to the vest, while today they almost flaunt their immorality. The Clintons and Trump being prime examples.
By the way, I had to search for that black morherbrepublican governor vote, but I found an article. Very interesting when it comes to kids how mothers priorities shift the thinking on politicians.
I would not say I have a higher appreciation of my fellow man.
I might say we have no choice.
Men make up the world.
free markets are made of men.
Society is made of men.
Socialist societies are made of men
Governments are made of men.
However bad you think men may be – the same men make up society, government, the elites.
Constrained from using force – men do fairly well. Not perfectly, but well enough to improve the world consistently.
The key problem is how to constrain men from using force.
It requires force to constrain force. We have no other way.
Government is that force, and government is made of men.
And it is men given the power to use force that are always the most dangerous.
“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.” James Madison Federalist 51.
This discussion began as a comment about the moral decline in America. Your comments concern government. I agree there has been little change overall, but with Clinton (40) and Trump, that could be debated for months with no conclusion reached.
My comments are based on society. I believe there has been a significant decline in moral human behavior in America. Starting with kids and the way they have been raised. Since 2007, the rate of teen suicide rates have increased 15% for males and doubled for female both 15-19 age group. Wasn’t it 2007 when the Iphone became popular and LG offerred larger screens for games. (And hate speech for teen bullying)?
I have not agreed or proposed there is little change overall. On the contrary, there is substantial change – and mostly for the good.
BUT I do agree that all changes have not been for the good and mostly agree that those you have indentified as bad are.
2007 was a low point in suicide rates. The long term trend is DOWN not up.
But there is often short term noise.
A 15% increase in suicides in a single group over a decade that is not a trend is not something to be concerned about.
Obviously we want suicides to be low. If they are trending up – we should be asking questions.
At the moment they are NOT trending up.
I do not beleive teen bullying is worse than ever. In fact I beleive it is better than ever.
The evidence suggests the real problem is that we are raising increasingly fragile children to become increasingly fragile adults. We are way too over protective. As a result children do not know how to deal with conflict. Give them a chance – they will manage.
The worst mistake we can make is to fix everything for them.
Ron,
Your criticisms are real. But with few exceptions – and there are definitely some exceptions.
most everything is improving. Not perfect, not near perfect, but better.
We are a racist society. But we are Much less racist than 50 years ago, and 50 years before that.
The same can be said of many many other of our flaws.
The left rants about gun violence – well gun violence is declining – even as gun ownership is increasing. I am not sure there is a cause and effect relationship. But there absolutely is NOT an inverse relationship. Mass shootings – as a long term trend are declining.
But they are so rare as to be near random and short term trends are almost meaningless.
You note bullying – the teen suicide rate peaked in 1988 – though that is likely an artifact of better reporting. Subsequently it has declined about 20% – the same is true of the overall suicide rate.
The US BTW has nearly the lowest suicide rate in the world only the netherlands is slightly lower.
I do not think kids bully more today than in the past. I was horribly bullied until I started HS.
We just pay much more attention today.
Children are safer today from almost every threat from accidents to predators, and we are more fearful than ever.
The impersonal nature of the internet has amplified our conflict – though I would note our founders were pretty nasty to each other.
At the same time it has given everyone much more voice than ever before.
I lament the bad – but overall I think the net is positive.
I do not think that hiding our conduct is such a great thing.
I recall growing up with a friend – a teacher, who was extremely religious and gay.
The world was much more hostile to that then.
She thought of herself as evil and damned to hell.
If you think you are going to hell no matter what, there are no moral distinctions left.
As a consequence her relationships were with teens, some as young as 13.
Absent the dark view that both the world, her faith and herself took of her life.
Absent being deeply in the “closet” even to herself – maybe her conduct would have been better.
I can not conceive of cheating on my wife. But Trumps relationship with his wife is between him and her. I do not really think it is mine to judge. There is little evidence of Trump using force, or even coercion, and what there is, is not credible. I am not trying to defend him – I could not be him.
A part of what I was trying to point out in one of my posts was that there are some absolutes to morality. The use of force against another has not been acceptable during most of recorded history. Other moral measures are less certain. For most of recorded history homosexuality has been very immoral. For most of human history all sexuality has been extremely narrowly morally constrained. Today in this country neither are strong moral values.
We MOSTLY still seem to place some value on fidelity. Though we could not convict John Edwards, we also could not elect him. But we elected Trump and we elected Clinton.
Many of our past presidents were no more faithful, but prior to clinton that had to be kept entirely secret.
I know that using force against others to get your way is wrong.
That condemns Bill Clinton. It does not condemn Trump.
Doing so through the proxy of government should be worse. But most of us still think the rapist is more heinous than the president who constrains our freedom – for our own good, and too many of us think it is acceptable – even morally laudable to steal one persons liberty “for their own good”. Worse still that “good” can be hypothetical, rather than proven.
One place where I do depart from most here is that I think that running a business (without using force or fraud) is one of the most noble things that anyone can do.
We know that in the past 50, 100, 200, 500 years, that free exchange has done more good for humanity than all charity ever.
John D. Rockefeller did more good for his fellow man than Mother Theresa.
That is not to denegrate Mother Theresa.
One place I am completely at odds with most here is that I beleive that Trump’s success in business inherently makes him MORE trustworthy and moral – regardless of his other pecadillos. And I think that experience in government inherently makes most LESS trustworthy.
I think a drug dealer is more trustworthy than a politician.
Even drug dealers must deliver value to their clients. Despite the fact that they operate entirely outside the law and regulation, very few actually look to harm their clients.
One of the most despicable things I think Chuck Schumer did was to move the FBI from targeting Russian financial cyber criminals – those cost us about 32B/year to targeting the Silk Road and similar cites. It is estimated that the Silk Road and anarcho-capitalist internet drug sales have significantly improved the quality and safety of illegal drugs and reduced overdoses. It has had a similar effect on prostitution.
Even the mafia must honor the deals it makes. Many decades ago, Serpico noted that in many ways the organized crime that police were supposed to be targetting, was more honest than the police targetting them.
By far the most dangerous people are those that we allow to use force against others – government.
Government is a necescary evil.
It is power – actual power over others that corrupts.
And that only occurs in government.
I do not think that if proven true all the alleged misconduct attributed to Trump compares to the actual conduct that we would all agree on of those in government who targetted him.
Do not get me wrong – I want PRESIDENT Trump subject to serious scrutiny.
Of course what I will be asking is – do his actions increase individual liberty or do they reduce it ? Thus far though he still scares me he has increased liberty much more than he has decreased it. And that nearly never happens. Not with democrats and honestly not even with republicans.
Morality is an extremely broad topic.
We are nearly universally agreed on the morality of force.
We have spent thousands of years working out what constitutes the justifiable use of force.
That is one domain of morality. It is a moral domain that constrains all of us absolutely – including government. It is the primary domain in which government functions.
If we are evaluating presidents in that domain – The bushes are not moral. Obama is not moral and Trump is more moral than any president since Reagan.
But that is not the only domain for morality.
That said pretty much all other moral domains are NOT THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT
For much of human existance homosexuality has been deemed immoral, today for most it is not. We do not want government operating in that moral domain.
There are infinite other moral domains – all of which we do not want government in.
I am a huge proponent of monogamy. I have never had any form of sexual relatons with anyone but my wife. No groping, no petting, no ….
Most of the rest of the world would define the morality of sexual relations more broadly.
So long as force is not involved it is NOT the business of government.
To the best of my knowledge Obama and the Bushes have been faithful to their wives.
Clinton and Trump have absolutely not.
As voters we are free to judge them on that or any other moral standard we wish.
As government – we are only free to address the morality of force.
Clinton used force against others in sexual relations
thus far no claims regarding Trump and sex involving force have stood up to scrutiny.
If they had – I doubt he would be president – though that did not stop clinton.
Trustworthyness is also a moral issue. It is again one that is outside the domain of govenrment.
Each of us decides who we will trust based on our own criteria.
And with respect to government and politicians we get to express that in our votes.
Trust has many forms.
I have a friend who exagerates about everything, or just plain makes things up.
But he is one of my best friends. When I need him – he is there, and I try to do the same for him.
So is he trustworthy or not ?
McDonalds sells millions of hamburgers every day. Amazon and walmart millions of other products, Each of us who purchases from them knows what we are getting and is satisfied nearly 100% or the time – accross billions of transactions.
That is an incredible degree of trustworthyness. And the free markets can not work without it.
Free exchange is voluntary and people do not exchange when they beleive they will be worse off.
Note I said “satisified” – not ecstatic. truly bubbly happy customers is an aspiration.
but trust is met when people are sufficiently happy with a transaction they will repeat it when they have the same needs again. When they beleive the exchange leaves them slightly better than before.
That form of morality is the most important in the world. It is that morality that has lifted us out of poverty to relative opulence.
Trump is not McDonalds. But he has done something that no president in the past century has done. He has engaged in free exchange with people and profited over the long term.
That does not happen without an enormous amount of Trust.
Are the Walton’s more trustworthy – likely. Bezos – certainly. Your neighbor – unlikely. Pretty much any politician – not a chance.
If the free market operated with the highest level of trust that exists regarding government – we would still be in the mire.
No one would work with almost any part of govenrment if they had a choice.
Thus far Trump has kept more campaign promises than any president in my life time.
That is an incredibly low bar and Trump remains short of all of them, and likely will not keep many. Regardless, that is a very significant reason for trust.
During the next two years if Trump says if re-elected he will do X, Y, and Z – there is a high probability he will and a much higher probability he will seriously try.
If he makes a campaign promise you can judge him based on that promise. You can know what you are voting for, You can vote for him for his promises or against him and know what you are voting over.
EVEN if you vote against him over his promises – that is STILL Trust.
That is another domain of morality, one that Trump dwarfs most presidents.
You may think that Obama had values you liked – and trump has values you hate.
But whatever Obama may have told you, he did not do what he promised.
Like Trump he was unable to accomplish somethings because of political opposition.
But quite often his promises were bait and switch.
ObamaCare passed because of promises like – you can keep your doctor, or your insurance.
Those were lies of consequence. People believed them, voted accordingly and were screwed. You can say much the same over “Mexico will pay for it” – but I do not think anyone actually beleived that – not his supporters, not his opponents.
Regardless, my point is that if the test is being true to your word in important things – Obama and most modern presidents fail. Where Trump does much better.
That is an aspect of morality.
Like my friend Trump is prone to exagerate – and to just make things up.
Though not to the extent he is criticized.
I would further note that much of the criticism is from those on the left who do exactly the same.
Is this important ? Yes, Immoral ? Yes, Is it more immoral than failing to keep important promises ? No.
That is parts of my approach to measuring morality.
You need not hold the same views. Though I think you will find that deviating too far from my positions results in dysfunction.
Whatever your particular views – you are not entitled to presume they are shared universally.
You are free to decide that Trump’s philandering is more significant than Clinton’s sexual assaults. But you are not free to impose your judgement on that on others by force.
You are free to try to persuade. Just as BTW the russians are.
The best of us have no more rights than the worst.
I would also ask you to define moral leadership.
There are many on the right who think that is opposing abortion with all their might.
Here is one view of morality. One with far stronger foundations than anything I have ever heard from you.
It is not especially relevant what people think about the moral leadership of the president.
Particularly people who can not define morality.
Hitler was a “moral leader” as was Mao. Communism and socialism more forcefully than any other ideologies impose FORCEFULLY their morality on all of us.
In their moral framework – that is the highest calling, the public good,
Can we commit genocide using a “in the public interest” argument ? Or a national security argument ? or a Public health argument ?
All of these have been justifications in the past.
Before you start spraying moral judgements of others – I want to know what YOUR moral framework is.
If Obama polled highly as a moral leader among socialists – that would be a BAD thing not a good one.
I do not beleive that just because law exists that law is good law.
But the role of government – the executive and the courts is to enforce all law as written.
That is NARROWLY.
It is the role of the courts to determine if the law as written and narrowly interpretted is constitutional. It is not the role of the court to expand to to create law.
It is the role of the people and the legislature to get rid of bad law that is not unconstitutional.
The government is obligated to follow the law as written – ALWAYS – as that law applies to government, and as that law applies to the people.
There is no ‘apparent’ activities are either legal or illegal.
The law should be enforced as written without discretion.
WHEN that produces bad results – either the courts must find the law unconstitutional – or if they can not, the people and the legislature must change it.
There is no ignoring the law – not for you and I, not for the government.
To the greatest extent possible everything associated with government should be balck and white. What falls into the infinite gray space of life belongs to individuals – not government.
What I have written about is an ideal, an aspiration.
But it is still something we should strive hard to acheive.
And the farther we are from it the more lawless we are.
And the more lawless we are the more prone to tyranny or anarchy and failure we are.
What is disturbing is that so many are actually advocating for lawlessness.
If Mueller did not like the law as it was narrowly understood – he is free to ask congress to change it. He is NOT free to try to change it himself.
This is a Tea Party Conservative’s Opinion
Sure would be nice if the fake news would stop calling Trump a conservative. Trump was a member of the American Independent Party in 1999, a Democrat in 2004, A republican in 2009 and Independent in 2012. In 2008 he called himself a Democrat on CNN.
Conservatives believe in free markets, are staunchly anti communist and believe in individual freedoms. Conservative for the most part are usually much more rreligious and base many decisions on God and the bible. Trump believes in little of the these, using tariffs to “equalize” trade, is highly positive of Putin and hardly ever basis anything on religion unless it is for some legislation, like abortion, that serves his purpose..
Trump is a populist, not conservative. As described by others, “Populist individuals campaign and attract support on the basis of their own personal appeal, not political appeal Their supporters then develop a perceived personal connection through the populist movement. Populist rhetoric allows these people to claim that they have a direct relationship with “the people” and in many cases they claim to be a “voice of the people”. Male populist leaders often express themselves using simple and sometimes vulgar language in an attempt to present themselves as “the common man” or “one of the boys” to add to their populist appeals as does Trump. Another recurring feature of male populist leaders is the emphasis that they place on their own virility as seen by Berlusconi (Italy) and Trump.
So its time for conservatives to begin acting like conservatives and decide if the future of the country and the party is important enough to challenge Trump in 2020. It may cost the election in 2020, but might just insure the continuation of the Republican party as a conservative voice.
Nice. Right on target. I have come to the conclusion that the only actual principles most conservatives truly hold are lower taxes and whatever will pass off liberals, moderates and Rinos the most. Truly principaled consrvatives are a dying breed. The GOP has become the Toronto conservative party that embraced Ford. Almost No relation to who I had believed conservatives are. We will see what the consequences over the next decades. That is the timespan it will take to truly evaluate this. There will be a huge number of totally unpredictable unintended consequences.
Conservatism is not an ideology. Progressivism is close to one.
Libertarianism is an actual ideology.
Conservatism is William Buckley standing athwart the world yelling “stop”
It is the pragmatic argument that what has existed for centuries whatever its faults should be very carefully considered before willy nilly discarding.
Conservatism is not opposed to progress but demands that progress must proceed slowly.
Conservatism is much like compromise – it is a tool, not a principle.
When you make it into a principle it fails.
There are few in this country today – even on the right who would argue to return to jim crow, separate but equal, a womans place is in the home and homosexuality should be criminal and in the closet. While we are still fighting over whether past victim status entitles one to move to the head of the line today, We are not fighting to return to the past – mostly.
Lower taxes is not a conservative principle, but it is a goal that MOST flavors of conservatives share. It is therefore one that a republican congress can agree on.
Lower taxes are a biproduct of conservative.
Conservative supports smaller government
Smaller government =less spending
Less spending should= lower taxes.
We have few conservatives since those claiming to ge conservative support lower taxes, but more spending equalljng higher deficits. That IS NOT conservative.
The only unifying thread between strains of conservatism is the desire to go slow in disrupting long established norms that are working.
Lower taxes are a by product of all strains of conservatism – which is why they can be accomplished by conservatives.
All conservatives do not support smaller government.
The committment of establishment conservatives and neo-cons to limited government is poor. That of social conservatives nearly non-existant. Fortunately all three strains are fading.
You confuse conservative with correct.
Lower deficits and spending is a CORRECT value of many conservatives.
It is NOT an inherent value of conservatism.
Conservatism is not an ideology, and it is not inherently correct.
The best that can be said is that all strains of conservatism are superior to most strains of leftism (not all).
Libertarianism is an actual ideology with underlying principles – even if there are strains of libertarianism. Conservatism is not an ideology. Progressivism is significantly closer to an ideology conservatism.
Conservatism is not nearly do monolithic as the modern left – though the modern left is not always clear about what they beleive, They are crystal clear that dissent is not tolerated.
For all the criticism the right makes of intolerance towards conservatives on campus today – and that criticism is desrved, Minor dissent by those on the left is far more likely to result in sanctions than being openly conservative.
It is becoming difficult to be a comedian and on the left today.
Despite the lack of uniformity amoung conservatives today – libertarian republicans, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, Tea party, Establishment conservatives and neo-cons are all unique, and probably the only value they all share is lower taxes.
At the same time each faction is consistent – even over time.
Each of these groups stands for the same thing today as tthe same group did 20 or 40 years ago.
That is not true about the left. It is trivial – as we are finding out to find sexist, racist, homophobic remarks from those on the left in the not too distant past.
There was some tolerance for that less than a decade ago. Not today.
It is practically a game finding Obama or Clinton arguing against immigration, for a wall or border securtity or against gay marraige.
Roby it is the left that is a moving target not the right.
One of the major problems that the left has today is that to a very large extent, though not usually in the way intended and often not directly as a result of the efforts of the left, the fundimental goals of the left over the past 50 years have been acheived.
In the least racist society in the world at the least racist time in history the left is arguing that racism is the biggest problem facing the country.
Racism remains a problem – and always will.
Then you can take the above and substitute sexist for racism – and get the same results,.
or Homophobic.
One of the big problems the left faces is the absence of any more great causes.
Hence the fixation on income inequality, on exagerating the remaining vestiges of racism, sexism, homophobia, on free college or free healthcare. Or free this or free that.
There are no real big fights left for the left. Only little ones.
And most americans do not see the flags the left is trying to get us to follow as all that important today.
While conservatives still have big issues.
Government spending is too high, taxes are too high, government is too big,
Many of the big government programs that the left foist upon us are both popular and failing.
The left created the problem and has little credibility in fixing them.
Regardless, if you think republicans are out to piss you off, you are easily pissed off.
But that is self evident. Intolerance is primarily the domain of the left today. Not that the right are paragons of tolerance, just the intolerance of the left has over shadowed that of the right.
Regardless conservatives are inherently likely to “piss off” progressives – because conservatism is as buckley proclaimed “standing athwart the world shouting NO!”
Obama’s presidency was mostly a failure – not a catastrophic failure, but worse than the bushes, and clearly not nearly as good as Clinton or Reagan.
Republicans and Trump are working to undo all that failure. Of course that pisses off democrats. But republicans would not be able to do so absent the failure in the first place.
If you do not want to be “pissed off” by republicans undoing what you have done, then do things that work
Conservative is a pretty big tent. Now extinct blue dog democrats were conservative.
It is reasonable to call Trump a conservative.
But he is not a social conservative, He is not an establishment conservative, he is not a neo conservative. He is pretty strongly at odds with most of those.
He is also not a fiscal conservative or a free market conservative or a limited government conservative or a Tea Party conservative . But the distance between him and those is small.
He is a populist,
Why not call him that?
Because calling him a conservative cast a dark shadow over true conservatives by the left wing press singing to their choir.
I do not have a problem calling Trump a populist.
Nor do I have a problem calling “trumpism” a form of conservatism.
It is certainly a less malignant form of conservatism than social conservatism. or neo-cons.
I think that libertarianism is inherently conservaitve – in the sense of moving forward SLOWLY. I would call libertarianism the highest form of conservatism.
Though there are left variants of libertarianism.
Limited government and then fiscal conservatives would come next.
Trumpism is barely distinguishable from tea party conservatism.
Neo-cons, and social conservatives are the worst.
Yes, the left tries to make Trump a stain on conservatives.
But they tried to make Bush Romney and McCain a stain.
There is nothing being said about Trump that is not said about most every consequential republican. To the extent there is any difference it is that the left and the media say it higher pitched, more loudly and full throated.
But epitataphs like racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, …
hating hateful haters is applied by the left and much of the media to anyone to the right of clinton.
Trumpism is imperfect, but it is better than anything democrats have to offer, and better than much of what is likely of republicans.
In 2016 Republicans had a stellar field of candidates.
Anyone of whom would have been subject to all the same attacks as Trump, but none the same intensity of attacks, had they won.
At the same time I doubt that a single other potential republican candidate could have accomplished as much of what Conservatives wish to see than Trump has.
I am libertarian. I am directly at odds with Trumpism on several key points.
But I do not think Rand Paul if elected would have accomplished the same libertarian objectives that Trump has.
I do not think republicans should be embarrased by Trumps accomplishments.
For gods sake Bush drug us into multiple endless wars. Obama promised extradition and doubled down on that. Trump has not kept his promise to get us out of afghanistan – yet.
But he has not started any new wars and he has mostly reduced the conflict in syria.
Yemen was a mess before the election – but it is not our mess.
I do not have a problem saying Trump is thus far the best president since Clinton, and possibly since Reagan.
Clinton was an actually immoral person. Clinton is about more than infidelity. Clinton used force.
Walsh self identifies as a moderate.
And we care about this WHY?
Is anyone going on trial?
Is anyone going to be investigated by the DOJ?
Is anyone going to be fired from any job?
Or is this just another example of laws being broken and no one cares? Just picking the laws they want to follow and since no one was directly harmed, no need to do anything further?
They might get more info and they might write a book and make a few dollars on the sale of that book. If so go for it.
I beleive this is a setup for a house referal to Barr to reopen the Clinton U1 investigations.
We have an IG report on the same topic that should come down soon.
The goal is NOT to “get Clinton”, but to assure that there is as many bad news stories about Democratic misconduct over the next 2 years as Republican.
Further the U1 scandal in particular ties to Mueller. And Mueller appears to have stepped in it setting up a raid of an IG whistleblower. That stinks to high heaven of arrogance and corruption on Mueller’s part and reinforces Trump’s constant assertions that Mueller is a lawless bully who does not care about the facts and the law.
Though not directly related Comey stepped in it when he said that he would not have been able to setup the Flynn interview but for the disorganization of the Trump administration.
Ignoring the jab at Trump, that is pretty close to an admission that Flynn was setup.
There is a long recent interview with Alan Derschowitz basically saying that in the US we law enforcement questions people to gain information.
That it is improper, sometimes illegal for law enforcement to question people about things it already knows in the hope of catching them in a lie.
Nothing is served by that. It is a manufactured crime.
Investigations are not supposed to deliberately seek to create new crimes and criminals.
But that IS how Mueller operates.
There is a bit of an exit interview of Trey Gowdy who essentially says he has defended Mueller and Comey and the FBI in the past, but it is harder and harder and in many instances impossible to do so today.
I beleive it is Gowdy who points out that while Comey is free as a private person to seek to elect democrats today. That the specifics of what he says particularly given his conduct of the Clinton investigation as well as his subsequent remarks about investigating Trump are making it difficult to impossible to beleive that Comey was not acting almost entirely on politics not law.
I do not care about the “getting democrats” aspect.
I care greatly about further exposing malfeasance in the federal government generally and in DOJ FBI CIA specifically.
If DOJ/FBI reopened the U1/CF investigation so long as they focus on misconduct within government – that is less “political”.
I have ranted repeatedly about the political nature of the Trump investigation.
“This is worse than watergate”.
I do not know whether Bart will follow Obama’s lead, but the left and the press have given him permission to.
If it is acceptable to investigate Trump rather than a crime, it is certainly acceptable to target actual crimes committed by political enemies.
Do you have any doubt that an investigation of U1, or CF or Clinton at State or the Clinton Email Server, would lead to as many guily pleas or charges of lying to the FBI if prosecuted in the same way as mueller ?
Ultimately I still think that Obama or Trump should have ended this with a carefully constructed pardon of Clinton and Cronies at the end/start of the new administration.
Nor do I think that Trump should incestigate people rather than crimes any more than Obama.
But I like an enormous number in this country may take “guilty pleasure” in Barr’s DOJ raking the clintonista’s over the coals.
Giving them the “Mueller treatment”
I could be wrong – but I think that is whats up.
“I could be wrong – but I think that is whats up.”
And in the end, we will have another “Gowdy” investigation that costs big money, finds illegal activity, goes nowhere and is totally forgotten.
Oversight is the responsibility of congress. Democrat or republican, I absolutely want them spending lots of time on that.
I want the democrats to investigate the Trump administration up the wahzoo – but stick to investigating GOVERNMENT – that is their job. It is NOT their job to dig into the private lives of americans. Not Trump, Not anyone else.
I would prefer that the investigations were into things that would if true actually be malfeasance.
I have no doubt I will be critical of the Democrats investigations.
BUT, it still really is the job of congress to conduct these kinds of investigations, and I do not have any problem with them.
What I have a problem with is the stonewalling that was done under obama, and the still walling that continues with Trump – even though Trump opposes it.
I am really pissed at the stonewalling – no matter who does it.
Congress is not entitled to the advice given directly to the president – that is executive priviledge, But it must be communications TO the president. Not to the whitehouse, not to a cabinet secretary.
Congress is entitled to any classified information they wish. HOWEVER, those in congress accessing classified information must acquire security clearances and must follow the same laws that apply to everyone else. A leak of classified information is a serious crime.
It is usually wise for congress to step carefully near ongoing criminal investigations, But there is no obligation to do so. The risk is that the guilty might go free – that is all.
Congress gets to decide for themselves whether they wish to take that risk.
Not the president, not the AG, not the Deputy AG, not the special counsel.
It is special counsels engaged in political investigations that increasingly appear to be to protect themselves and their cronies. That I have problems with.
I would prefer that congressional investigations were lest posturing and stupidly political.
Every time Waters, Nadler, Cumingsor Schiff speak I want to throw something at whatever I am watching.
But they are congressmen – what they do is inherently political – even political investigations.
If the people do not want that – they can elect some one else.
“Oversight is the responsibility of congress. Democrat or republican, I absolutely want them spending lots of time on that.”
I support that position. But we have way too much dem. investigating rep. and rep. investigating dem. AND the investigations seem to be totally political without mrit because they go absolutely nowhere. And with theblind TDS that those on the left are afflicted with,there will be nothing good happening for the next 2 years. Not even anything that will prove Trump is guilty of anything other than being an egotistical ass since the whole show will be to weaken him as a candidate, not remove him from office. “Get Trump using whatever means possible, even illegal if needed”.
And that is not what the oversight given to congress by the founders was meant for.
“But we have way too much dem. investigating rep. and rep. investigating dem. AND the investigations seem to be totally political without merit because they go absolutely nowhere.”
Nope!. I do not care if they spend all there time investigating each other.
I do not care if they are totally political.
Congress is answerable to the voters. If we are unhappy with their partisan investigations we can chose other representatives.
What congress does must pass three tests,
The constitution,
Their own wishes
Those of the voters.
I think some things congress might do are really stupid.
But the are are no laws against stupid. Nor should there be.
Pelosi and Dems will be judged by voters in 2020.
Their actions between now and then will determine what that judgement is.
So you dont care. That is where you and I differ completely. If they are not going to do anything, then they need to get the hell out of DC and do nothing at home. Stop wasting money on political witch hunts.
But yeah, it is just the taxpayer money they are spending, so why should we care. Ther is more where that came from.
We do not have government for what it actively does for us – with few execptions government is one of the least effectice ways to do things – if it actually does anything of value at all.
Government serves two purposes – as a deterent against the unjustified use of force by individuals, and for actual emergencies where a central authority is required.
And the latter is quite rare.
Congress does not exist to do things,
Lord, we don’t need
Another law
There are statutes
And codes enough for all mankind
There are regulations
And mandates enough to last
till the end of time
The congress is there primarily as a check on the power of the executive.
If Pelosi wishes to investigate up the wahzoo, so be it.
When congress is wasting money on investigations it is not wasting far more money on spending
My only disagreement with much of what you wrote is that dems in congress are free to be stupid.
They are free to be stupid, but the courts have found in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s that this stupidity is also limited in nature.
The courts have ruled:
“Broad as the power of inquiry is, it is not unlimited. The power of investigation may properly be employed only in aid of the legislative function. Its outermost boundaries are marked, then, by the outermost boundaries of the power to legislate. In principle, the Court is clear on the limitations, clear that neither house of Congress possesses a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen; that the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house has jurisdiction and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; that if the inquiry relates to a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers; and that for the purpose of determining the essential character of the inquiry recourse must be had to the resolution or order under which it is made”.
It seems to me that too many investigations in the house are those that should be conducted by the judicial branch, not the legislative branch.
In the 1890’s the power to legislate was far more limited than today. Your oppinion is no constraint at all.
I would go somewhat different.
The power of congress to investigate the executive is nearly unlimited – BTW that would be consistent with your 1890 ruling. What the executive does it does as authorized by law, and is therefor proper grounds for congrssional oversite.
Where there is an issue it is when congress investigates outside of government.
I think they have very little basis for the type of investigation the democrats wish to do.
I do not as an example think that Congress can investigate Trump’s (or anyone else) personal or business conduct without a clear nexus with government.
I would note that I do not expect Trump to resist – with more than words, congressional investigation. Clinton engaged in end to end legal warfare and asserted priviledges that did not exist all over. Trump has not done that. He has drawn verbal lines in the sand, but he has not backed them up.
The judicial branch has no investigative powers and should not ever have them.
“And we care about this WHY?”
I think I have already answered that in many ways.
The misconduct of government is ALWAYS more dangerous than that of individuals – even those in political campaigns.
“Is anyone going on trial?”
I do not speak for whitacker or Barr,
But my guess is there will be investigations, and indictments,
Both because it is a good idea and because it is politically expedient for republicans.
“Is anyone going to be investigated by the DOJ?
Is anyone going to be fired from any job?”
I do not know, but I suspect so.
“Or is this just another example of laws being broken and no one cares? Just picking the laws they want to follow and since no one was directly harmed, no need to do anything further?
They might get more info and they might write a book and make a few dollars on the sale of that book. If so go for it.”
Sessions was an obstacle to this. To some extent the Mueller investigation was an obstacle.
But oddly I think that the democratic take over of the house makes it easier for DOJ/FBI to get serious about investigating the left.
It is easier to paint as obstruction and political revenge when you control all of government.
I think the unwillingness of sessions to get serious about investigating the misconduct of the prior administration – and the many people STILL in government who were involved was core to his firing – not Mueller, not recusal.
So explain this. (And dont nit pick words, just explain the issue)
There are three divisions of gov. Executive, legislative and judicial. Sessions has been gone for sometime now.
DOJ is executive branch. AG heads DOJ. AG reports to president.
GOP investigation in house request DOJ info. House is legislative branch controlled by same party as president.
DOJ stone walls House request for info. Still stone walling today!
So if there has been illegal activity taking place, why the stonewalling when Trump pledged a drain the swamp!
Trump is the swamp
Pretty much every critique I have made of government misconduct – some of which is criminal, that I have made has NOTHING to do with Trump
Yes, there is still stone walling.
Though there has been lots of turmoil in Trumps legal time, there has been one thing that has been constant regarding the advice Trump has been given and followed – even if not on twitter – cooperate. Trump is handling this the opposite of Clinton. While Trump tweets his increasing issues with the SC. He does NOTHING to “interfere”
I do not beleive trump got rid of sessions to interfere with Mueller.
I beleive he did so because Sessions resisted opening investigations into the conduct of the FBI, DOJ etc.
I am not sure that Sessions was not technically correct – but only because we have made such a mess of this.
The special Counsel investigation should be under CONGRESS, not the AG.
It is congresses job to conduct broad investigations that are mostly political of the president, and his party. there remains no crime that Mueller is charged to investigate – that has always been a huge problem. It is a requirement of the SC law. It is a requirement for any DOJ investigation. It is NOT a requirement for congress.
But because the SC is technically under the AG and the AG is recused the AG must take care not to open another investigation that would interfere with the SC investigation.
That could constitute obstruction – that is a reach, but we have heard so many made up legal claims in this it is near certain that if Sessions had authorized an investigatiuon that interfered with Mueller that claims of obstruction would be raised.
The activities of the Russians – separate from the Trump campaign NEVER required a special counsel and never ever should have had one. Congress can investigate that and the counter intelligence devision of the FBI can investigate that. Further those investigations need not follow criminal constraints – EXCEPT where they involve US persons.
Any investigation of a political campaign should really be done by congress. If you need an SC – that SC should answer to congress not the AG.
That would substantially eliminate the conflict of the AG investigating other issues that step on the toes of the SC.
Back to Trump – Trump drew a line in the sand regarding his business deals.
Mueller crossed it – Trump ranted and raved, but did nothing.
Trump had legitimate grounds to oppose Mueller’s raid of transition team documents.
Trump chose not to fight that.
Unlike Clinton who took the star investigation to the supreme court repeatedly aside from public rantings Trump has been very cooperative.
The short answer is because Trump can’t direct the AG to look into anything that might potentially negatively impact the SC investigation without raising obstruction claims.
I do not think Trump stands any chance of ever getting convicted on any of these nonsense claimed legal theories.
But congress is not bound by the law, and can impeach purely because something looks bad.
A conservative speaks…
“Sir, in mobster lingo, a ‘rat’ is a witness who tells prosecutors real incriminating info.”
Incorrect.
Typically a “rat” is a criminal who provides information to prosecutors about other alleged criminals.
“Rats” have a long history in our criminal justice system – and are notoriously unreliable.
I would suggest reading John Grisham’s book “An Innocent Man” it is a true story.
“Rats” fill the book. They are critical to convicting the protagonist, who did nothing, and was not even at the crime scene.
Regardless the term “Rat” has no connotation of “real”. Rats may be telling the truth, they may be lying.
DOJ does have procedures, they were not followed. This is NOT something common and almost always when it is done it is corrupt.
I know of a few other instances where it occured and all of them were bad.
But Mccarthy’s advice is good. Trump should not be tweeting about Cohen.
The Cohen plea deal – despite the hysteria of those on the left, poses no threat to Trump.
At the same time defending Cohen is a bit “ewey”.
One of the problems with this mess is the number of oily people in it – whether it is Cohen, or Blumenthal, or Manafort or Podesta, or Halper, or Corsi, or Avanatti or ….
Absolutely there is reason to wonder why Trump is tied to so many oily people.
AND to wonder why democrats are tied to so many too. Often the same ones.
“Typically a “rat” is a criminal who provides information to prosecutors about other alleged criminals.”
You finally got something right.
Or are you too dense to understand what you said?
I know the difference between a criminal and an alleged criminal.
I am pretty sure Trump does too,.
I understand exactly what I said.
Clearly you do not.
The vast majority of information that “rats” provide is FALSE.
“Rats” are infamous for claiming to know about the criminal acts of others, in return for some benefit to themselves.
When you start from the presumption that whoever they are “ratting out” is actually guilty of something, it is easy to be deluded into buying what a “rat” says.
One of the more stupid things Mueller has done is to get people to plead to “lying to the FBI”
Whether true or not – that person becomes nearly useless as a witness.
By pleading guilty to any of a large class of crimes generally refered to as “crim-in-falsi”, the prosecutor makes them near useless as a witness.
That does not mean they can not provide information to the prosecutor – but the prosecutor must independently verify the truth of falsity of that information, as the jury will be instructed that the witness not merely has a reputation for lying but has lied criminally in the past and that what they say can not be treated as truthful.
Because we are also refering to a “rat’ the court will not only provide the crimin-in-falsi jury instruction, but also the instruction that the witness is a criminal charged by the prosecutor who has or is expecting leniency in return for their testimony – another reason that the jury is expected to devalue their testimony.
These instructions exist for good reasons – “rats” are notorious for providing false testimony and implicating innocent people.
Mostly this is not a big deal – because there is very little disagreement about the facts.
The disagreement is as to whether the facts constitute a crime.
We have been over that (and over and over).
It was not when Edwards used real campaign funds from real donors to pay substantial sums to someone he had an affair with all during the election.
I do not beleive there is an FEC commissioner at this time that thinks this is a crime.
The FEC has openly stated numerous times this is not a crime.
The actual facts in the Trump case are FARTHER from the law than Edwards.
AS I( have told you repeatedly – prosecutors DO NOT get to make up the law.
Nor are you correct that the courts get to decide what a crime is either.
We refer to the law. We read what the legislature wrote, we then construe it NARROWLY – because otherwise it is unconstitutional and the analysis is done.
After construing it narrowly we check to make sure that what we think is a crime does not conflict with other law, the constitution or our assorted individual rights.
Mueller fails on all counts, to charge he had to succeed on all points.
Your link demonstrates the fundimental problem with this investigation.
If as a prosecutor you went after what you think is a crime syndicate and they only thing you can come up with is the crap Mueller has come up with – then the problem is that you do not have a crime syndicate. You are investigating ordinary people – and trying to force your crime syndicate concept on them.
This is a very common “law enforcement” failure.
When you start treating the targets of your investigation like a crime syndicate absent evidence, the problem is YOU, not them.
Jay, I have zero doubt that if I went through your back taxes I could find something sufficient to accuse you of a crime. I don’t beleive you intended anything wrong regarding your taxes. You may have even paid more than you were required to. I am still sure I can find something that I can call criminal
I am also sure that if I grill you on your back taxes for 90 hours about every tiny detail in them that I can get you to incorrectly respond many times.
The fact is we should not be dealing with people we KNOW are criminals in this way.
We certainly should not deal with people who we just wish were criminals that way.
Given that I have more respect for the average Mafiso than the average US Attorney, this is meaningful how ?
The maifia can not survive through force alone. In fact they really are just business people.
They are the quintessential anarcho capitalists.
They engage in business – providing products that people want to the people who want them.
All that distinguishes them from other businesses is that they do not rely on government to enforce their agreements, They use force themselves.
But they must be careful even with that. Not because of law enforcement, but because if they do not deliver value to their customers, their customers dry up.
The gambling that the mafia runs has much better odds than state lotteries and returns more to patrons than the state lotteries.
If the mafia makes a loan – they want repaid, breaking your leg does not make them anything. Further they want you to come back and borrow again, that means that their interest and their enforcement must not be so unappealing as to lead you to not borrow.
No one would borrow money from the mafia, if they were going to be killed no matter what. No one would borrow money from the mafia if they could get a better deal elsewhere.
Put simply, though no heros the mafia is more moral than most in government.
And that include most US attorney’s.
“Ill call it what it is – Extortion, and that is what the department of justice does every day”
Howard Root
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/16/a_justice_department_coup.html
Federal records keeping laws – as well as the legal and ethical requirements of a criminal investigation – such as the brady rule, require that information such as the texts on a phone of a government investigator or lawyer are preserved.
The FBI has a program to do so – but it failed miserably. However OIG appears to have concluded that the FBI’s failure was innocent, and equally important the FBI preserved the phones of Page and Strzok and OIG was ulimately able to recover 16000 additional texts from them. We should brace for new heinous texts.
DOJ has no process for preserving texts, though they are obligated to do so. But again Page and Strzok’s phones were preserved and the OIG was able to recover data from them.
The SC has no process for preserving texts, Further the SC wiped Pages and Strzok’s phones when they left or were terminated.
I do not know what the OIG has concluded, but the SC wiping of the phones is a very serious problem. One thing this report clears up which is important – is that the OIG investigation predates the SC investigation, therefore the SC was aware of the OIG investigation and the requirement to preserve texts.
The SC does not get to determine what the OIG thinks is responsive to its requests.
But beyond the OIG is the brady rule. Law enforcement is required by supreme court decisions to preserve and provide to the defence anything that might be exculpitory.
At the time of Strzok and page’s departure the investigation was not complete and it is impossible to determine what might be exculpatory.
Should the SC ever procede against Trump all texts by page or strzok disparaging Trump would be exculpatory.
Mueller in particular has interpreted the law broadly regarding the conduct of those he is investigating. He has used a witness tampering definition that is so broad that no defendant could conduct their own defense. He has used a defintion of lie that is ludicrously broad.
I would not that by Mueller’s own defintion of lie – the SC’s remarks that there was no significant information on Strzok’s phone would be a lie to the IG – the same crime papdoulis and flynn are facing. It is near imposible given daily negative tweets about Trump that Page and Strzok suddenly went silent while they were working for the SC.
That is a far clearer lie than the claim that because Flynn did not report that Kislyak mentioned sanctions – Flynn did not, that he lied.
Finally this is a violation fo the brady rule, and potentially destruction of evidence,.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/13/doj-destroyed-missing-strzok-page-text-messages-before-ig-reviewed-them/
A 30 Year Criminal Enterprise
https://twitter.com/richardhine/status/1074414447836479489?s=21
You source claims that realestate developers are slimy to begin with and that Trump is the lowest of those.
That is all just an opinion and a very bad one.
If you succeed in the world – at anything, without using force or fraud – you are not slimy or the lowest of the law. You are infact doing more than mother theresa.
Anyone who thinks that succeeding is immoral – has dubois intellectual skills and is actively seeking a world in which people suffer. Abesent force or fraud one persons success does not come at the expense of others, it comes SOLEY by providing a benefit to others – usually 10 times the benefit they receive personally.
Further in the real world people do not deal with people they do not trust.
One of the big deals about Amazon, ebay and the online comerce system is that it has provided us with an effective means of measuring the trustworthyness of peoople we will never meet, and might not even share the same language.
Brands – and Trump is one of the larger brands in the world – are entirely about Trust.
Everyday you have the choice between joes burgers on the corner and McDonalds.
Much of the time Joe makes a better cheaper burger. Yet more people go to mcdonalds.
Why ? Because they trust mcdonalds. That is what the belief that you know exactly what you will get is – TRUST.
There are only a few rare exceptions in business who succeed using force or fraud.
And those exceptions pretty much always involve government.
Trump has succeeded on a gargantuan scale. He has succeeded in multiple domains.
I can not think of a person who is not very smart who has ever done that. I can not think of a person who is not trustworthy who has ever done that.
You fixate on his rhetorical style. You can choose not to trust people on that basis alone.
It is certainly a disadvantage of Trump.
And yet he succeeds despite it.
People buy buildings, apartments, golf, gamble, and watch TV from Trump because because they expect to benefit. They expect to be better off with their building or … than their money,
If that was not true – they would not exchange.
There is no gun to their head. No one has ever been required to deal with Trump.
Dave Is Your Brain Dead?
https://twitter.com/montel_williams/status/1074438080977866752?s=21
Jay, If you look back on most everything Dave has posted, he is not defending Trump for the most part. Dave is defending the rule of law and the constitution.
But those like you that have TDS to the point you are blinded can not understand the difference.
And that is what scares the shit out of people like me where people like you are willing to let the government run willy nilly over rights to get to Trump. And when you allow them to violate your rights, you allow them to violate my rights and all American’s rights.
If Trump is a criminal, then there is a policy in place to investigate criminal activity. But it sure as hell is not like what we have seen in the past year+. I an not going to restate the many things some of us find unacceptable with this investigation and how information was obtained to get to the many individuals Mueller has charged because Dave has stated those many times and they fly over your head without notice. But if you were investigated in the same manner, I suggest you would be claiming your rights were violated.
Ron;
Thank you.
I do not think it is necescary to be precise about this.
Jay presumes as with everything that it is binary, black and white.
Some things in the world are binary. Most are not.
My Attacks on Mueller and the FBI are only tangenetially related to Trump.
Unlike Trump I do not inherently think the FBI and DOJ are “good people”.
There are some good people – though I do not much respect those who stand silent when others in power do wrong.
Getting rid of Mueller would be a START – not an end.
Nor is my goal to punish specific people – whether Mueller or Clinton.
Though I beleive that absent consequences there is no rule of law.
My goal is to expose the lack of integrity of government.
I am quite serious when I say that the ordinary business person has far more integrity than any politician and most in government.
Those in business are accountable – to owners, to clients, first and foremost.
Jay and the left seem to think it is easy to lie to the world and sell crap get away with it an profit egregiously.
If success without delivering value was so easy – everyone would be doing it.
It may be possible to succeed fabulously as Trump has without delivering enormous value but it is incredibly difficult and quite rare.
Anyway. I want a serious investigation into all of this – AND consequences – not because I want to protect Trump, not because I like Trump, not because I hate Clinton, or Mueller.
Though my disdain for Mueller is magnified the more I learn. He appears in just about every botched and egregiously handled FBI case through to being an SAC in Boston.
Everytime I turn arround I hear that Mueller was a critical figure in some other well known botch FBI investigation.
Nor is his misconduct limited to botching cases.
Mueller’s actual reputation is for bullying innocent people.
I am greatly losing respect for the large number of republicans who defended Mueller at the start of the investigation. I was not at that time aware how prominently Mueller figured in every single mess regarding the FBI in my lifetime. But I was aware of some of those. I was aware that he had a role in the Botched ft. dietrick anthrax case. I was aware that he had a role in Ruby Ridge. I was not at that time aware that he was involved in the cover up of U1, Richard Jewel, Comey’s famous ambush of Bush II, Whitey Bulgar.
Ever couple of days I find that Mueller had a key role in some other mess.
Apparently he was involved in the Ted Stevens cock up.
Mueller is self evidently a “Bad Cop”. He is the epitomy of what is wrong with government. Useful bullies get promoted.
I would be after Mueller if he were targetting Clinton.
No one should have to deal with Thugs like Mueller – not even actual criminals.
I do not believe that Mueller is political – in the left/right sense.
But he is highly political in the – what is best for Robert Mueller sense.
Next I want to address Trump.
Bring me evidence of actual crimes on the part of Trump and I have no qualms about taking him down.
BUT – I am STILL looking to clean house at the FBI/DOJ./…..
Nor is this about Obama and Clinton. If the re are no consequences for the political misuse of government power during the obama administration – it will get worse. Much worse.
What if Trump decided to sic the FBI/DOJ/CIA on Oprah ?
She is a potential 2020 candidate, and she has lots of fingers in foreign pies.
There is as much justification to investigate Oprah right now as there was to investigate Trump – NONE.
And that is the point. If we do not address this – it will get worse.
I do not understand why the rest of you do not understand this is worse that watergate – and that has nothing to do with Trump.
What distinguishes this from Watergate is that in this case the DOJ/FBI/CIA agreed to do the politically corrupt bidding of the president. In Watergate Nixon could not get them too and had to go outside.
This is not merely an indictment of Obama, it is an indictment of the FBI/CIA/DOJ.
J. Edgar Hoover said NO! To Nixon. James Comey said YES!!!! To Obama.
Regardless if we allow this we will get worse, and if you think that the left will always be the beneficiaries you are much mistaken.
Personally Trump is a side issue. He is just the target that has so offended the left – and so many here, that they are willing to sell their soul, to sacrifice any principles they might have to get him.
The issue is not Trump – it is YOU and your personal morality if you buy this garbage.
The left has redefined crime as anything that annoys them.
That is the most dangerous thing that can happen in government.
As Voltaire noted – “it is dangerous to be right when government is wrong.”
As To Trump.
I am bothered by his relationship to women. Though he is Not even close to Clinton, nor even Biden or Franken. Despite the “pussy grabbing” remarks – in the era of #metoo where people are coming forward with decades old stories of misconduct large and small,
All we have on Trump is two women who had consensual relations with Trump that were pretty tame. To the extent his conduct is offensive, it is because he was cheating on his wife.
And that is between them – not my business.
As to the NDA’s – the most egregious version of that – still not a crime.
And no I really do not care if political candidates or anyone else pays to keep their legal actions secret. There is a right to privacy. There is no right to know.
With respect to Trump’s policies. Some are awful
but overall thus far warts and all he is the best president since Reagan.
That could change. Thus far it has not.
Regardless I will be happy to attack Trump’s policies when I disagree with them.
Though one problem I have is that quite often when Trump does something I do not like, it is because he is actually following the law.
I expect the president to follow the law – even laws I disagree with, until the law is repealed.
As I see it there are several things that enrage the left at Trump.
Like Clinton he stole some of their issues, to get his voters Inarguably Trump targetted blue collar democrats, and he did well with them.
He won an election the teft stupidly beleived was their property.
He is the voice of “the deplorables”
His promised to undo everything Obama did – especially what he did lawlessly.
He is succeeding at that
He is succeeding overall.
He gets things done
In short as a president he is very much like a businessman.
He does not lose sight of his goals. He adapts as needed.
He understands that he is there to accomplish what he promised and to make those who voted for him happy. As well as to increase their numbers
I would suggest that those with Trump Derangement syndrome might want to consider what Trumps favorables would be without the all trump is evil all the time ranting going 24×7.
I will not agree entirely with any president or any other person.
I can note a long list of things about Trump I do not like.
But my net assessment of him is favorable.
There are innumerable reasons that I would have prefered and likely still prefer Rand Paul or any other republican. Even a sane democrat in the rare instances such exists.
But despite that preference I doubt any of them would have suceeded i the way Trump has.
I would ask the same of you.
We have no evidence of actual crimes on the part of Trump – or even his cronies.
We have incontrovertable evidence of large numbers of crimes involving Clinton.
We STILL have no basis for the investigation into Trump – not even today.
We get these nonsense stories every so often trying to make legal acts that you do not like into crimes. But they are not crimes. I think that deep down you know that. But if you do not, you could not make society work if they were. You seem to think that criminal means whatever someone you do not like does – even if those you like do the same thing or worse and you argued forcefully that was not a crime.
As time progresses we get more and more evidence that the Obama administration was more criminal than Nixon.
That Mueller is one of the most egregiously unethical prosecutors ever.
I would note that though some republicans supported Mueller – I have never done so.
I think he will be remembered badly – he makes Ken Star look like a girl scout.
I actually hoe the democrats spend the next 2 years drilling a dry hole, but I suspect they will not.
Brain dead is believing things without evidence. That is the stuff of religion, certainly not law.
Brain dead is NOT beleiving things where there is evidence.
Brain dead is beleiving that facts are a matter of oppinion.
That the laws of nature and even human behavior are subordinate to the laws of man.
While Trumps actions are not crimes – we could pass laws that make them so.
But such laws would be bad laws and lead slowly to failure.
You do not seem to grasp that. Sometimes I argue constitutionality. But mostly I do not.
It is not that I do not place high value in the constitution.
It is that most of the constraints of the constitution are not merely “the supreme law of the land”, not merely the legal framework protecting our rights, they are there because they work, and because the alternatives do not.
A law that is unconstitutional should be rejected not because it is unconstitutional, but because all laws that offend the constitution (and many that do nor) are both offensive and lead usually slowly to failure.
So are you brain dead ?
I knew Trump was a defective human when I learned he didn’t like dogs, cats, hamsters, birds, or even goldfish.
Did his kids have pet mosquitoes as children?
Well that goes with living in NYC. I have always thought anyone living in the city is defective in some manner. Who the hell can live in that mess and be normal? Not having pets seems to just go with that life style.
And do mosquitoes actually live in NYC. I did not think there was enough natural growth to support even them.
If you like dogs that is one of the few good things I know about you.
Hitler BTW liked dogs. Further he was vegetarian.
If it were for me to control I would put trump and putin in a room together with all their enablers and flunkies and make them all listen to each other lie and brag without end for the rest of eternity.
I like that.
Or put Trump and Pelosi and Schumer in a room – did that.
Or put Trump and Warren and AOC in a room.
Or just put all politicians in a room and make them listen to each other
and lock the press out so we do not need to know what they say.
I must have TDS for thinking such a rotten thing, right? Jay’s negative view of trump can’t hold a candle to mine. I am sane as can be and I regard dispising the reality of having a man of Trump’s character as POTUS as a utterly reasonable and honorable reaction.i would despise a person of such character as POTUS even if they agreed with my view of every political issue. Those of us who reject trump the man completely are the lucid ones. Hanging the TDS tag on us is absurd. We include George Will. George Conway, many many consrvatives of actual character. When all the consequences of having a Trump’s character in the oval office have come home to roost then I will ask you, who had TDS, his detractors or his supporters.
“then I will ask you, who had TDS, his detractors or his supporters.”
Roby, I made that comment about being blinded by TDS based on the apparent disregard for the constitution.
I believe there are methods to remove an individual from office clearly delineated in the constitution. I would support that occurring and congress has the responsibility to follow those procedures.
Others would remove Trump from office using any legal or illegal process they can think of and believe that to be great for the country.
In which group would you place yourself?
Roby,
With respect I would suggest that though you may beleive what you are saying that it makes no sense.
I would suggest that your judgement of Trump’s character is based on politics and ideology, not facts or actual behavior.
I am not trying to defend all of what Trump has done.
But I am saying that weighing all the attributes that make character – Trump’s character issues are not as great as Obama’s or Bush II’s or Clinton’s.
It is self evident to anyone who is not blind that Obama used the power of government against political enemies.
There is little on earth that reflect bad character more than that kind of bad character.
And overall I like Obama. Regardless, that is Nixonian. The only differences are that Obama got away with it and that the FBI, CIA, IRS, DOJ told nixon to stuff it.
Clinton has the same issues with women as Trump – except on steroids.
Clinton actually provably harassed women. Trump’s great sins are infidelity and and crude language – character flaws – absolutely. But compared to most of washington very small ones.
Does Trump brag ? Absolutely, and certainly a character flaw. So has every president, including Obama. The big difference is their target audience.
Presidents(politicians) have a style of relating to people.
I think that Obama’s Bush’s and Clintons were practiced.
I do not as an example think that Bush II’s texas bumpkin (as portrayed by democrats) persona was natural. I do not think Obama’s fairly intellectual white persona was natural.
I do not think that Clinton’s persona was natural.
I do not think Trump’s is either. All have some ties to their roots. But all crafted their persona for their own benefit.
I think much of what you do not like about the way Trump speaks, the way he brags, pretty much his entire presentation is because he is not speaking to you. He is mostly speaking to High School Educated Blue Collar workers, He is speaking their language.
That is an over simplification – as aspects of Trump’s persona come from his background, and from the fact that they were effective in his past endeavors.
I think Trump deliberately seeks to have elites underestimate him.
Regardless, speaking to an audience that is not you is not a character flaw.
You are claiming Trump’s character is deficient to a degree beyond the pale.
Just to be clear, I am not looking to “defend” trump’s character. I am looking to have a real discussion about it.
I am seeking to judge trump’s character based on facts, Not emotions or assertions.
I am deeply offended by the actions of MBS – that is real bad character.
I have some issues with Trump’s words regarding MBS.
But in the end no US president was going to do anything differently – though they might say different words.
Put differently I do not think that what we say is that important a facet of character compared to what we do.
You and I can probably go through a list of character flaws that Trump has – and possibly agree on most of them.
And some do involve actions.
But agreeing on a list of flaws does not mean that I must come to the same assessment you have. Each flaw has weight. Trump’s conduct with Women is worse than Bush’s and Obama’s but not nearly so bad as Clinton or even Kennedy.
So that does not get you to the level you have ratcheted yourself to.
I am asking you what is it that does ?
What I would suggest that you miught consider is that it IS because of polices and politics.
Or possibly more importantly it is because Trump is an in your face rejection of the policies of HRC and Obama, and in your world view that should as HRC said, meant Trump should have lost by 50 points – and he didn’t.
I think that you have inflated the significance of Trump’s character flaws because he is dancing on the grave of your political values.
That is not the same as bad character.
I would like to beleive as Ross Perot did that a persons good character is a critical qualification for being a good president.
Given a choice of people of actual good character – I will pick those of good character.
Though I will openly note that because my ideology rests on moral principles – in fact morality itself can not exist without some of those principles, that some of my judgements of character can be cast as ideological.
No matter how pleasant a person you are – if you advocate for the use of force against others without their consent – even through government, even for their own good, that fails the character test for me.
A rapist who “feels my pain” is still a rapist. If you are prepared to violate the freedom of others without clearly justifying that violation what distinguishes you from the rapist ?
That applies equally to republicans and democrats.
That said TODAY, those on the right are less inclined to violate the liberty of others than those on the left. Though that has not always been so.
Conversely those whose personal gain has concurrently benefited other many many times over – that is good character – regardless of how well they have done for themselves.
Regardless, I am prepared to have an honest discussion of Trump’s character.
But those on the left do not have honest discussions. You spray falacies, naked assertions and ad hominem as fact and then malign anyone who criticises or asks you to support your argument.
Emoting on steriods is not argument.
What you think is “self evident” is not if you are unable to explain it such that everyone agrees.
On issue after issue, your judgement is like that you offer of Trump – suspect, because you are unwilling to make a valid argument.
I highly doubt that we can come to complete agreement.
But if you are prepared to have a real discussion. One where arguments are made with facts, logic and reason rathat than naked assertions, emotions, fallacy and ad hominem
I am certain that we can reach some common ground.
As I said at the start – dealing with facts I suspect we mostly agree on what Trump’s character flaws are. What we are unlikely to agree on is that they are the “worst ever”, or even that they are worse than your average politician.
I would note to you that there are lots of people who are unwilling to defend Trump, that do not embrace clinton or the left.
Further if this devolves into an argument over who is the lessor evil – you have lost.
Not because it is obvious that Trump is the lessor evil between Trump and Clinton,
but because if you accept that as the argument, you have accepted that the left lost because they offered a candidate with bad character.
“I will ask you, who had TDS, his detractors or his supporters.”
Or maybe we should do a fact based assessment – and not in a vacuum.
Is Trump a good person compared to Ghandi ? No.
Is he a good person compared to hitler ? Yes.
Hopefullly we agree on that.
When we start moving away from the extremes – that is when we will diverge.
Because even though hopefully you agree that Trump is not hitler,
You only barely beleive that. You beleive Trump’s character is extreme. And it is not.
I am unaware of any illegal attempts to remove trump. There is a legal process, it isn’t going to work, no matter what trump does and so the volcano builds it’s pressure. This ends badly for our country and our future. One scoundrel has brought us to a far worse place than we were at three years back.
Roby You failed to answer the question. I believe that Jay would use any means short of assination to remove trump. You state your TDS is far worse than Jay’s.
So should I accept you would use any legal or illegal means to remive him from offce?
I know of no illegal means to remove a president. You are hunting a mythical beast. Here is real beast to hunt: this POTUS has no understanding or respect for law or the Constitution. Lifelong affluenza has made him believe that these constraints do not apply to him or his administration.that is a genuine constitutional crisis.
What Real Laws has Trump broken – not this made up garbage that no one has ever before been prosecuted for and that would throw all of congress in jail.
So far SCOTUS has upheld all of nearly all Trumps actions.
Obama was overturned 9-0 more than any other president ever.
If not respecting the constitution is grounds for removal – Obama is top of the list
Trump near the bottom.
Further in term sof lawlessness – Obama made up what he could do all the time.
And usually was slapped down by SCOTUS.
Trump has followed the actual law and been excorriated by the left.
That law and constitution are those things written down.
They mean what they say, they do not mean what you FEEL they should say.
It is not Trump that does nto respect the law or constitution – it is you.
Getting a supeona based on sworn information that is not true – is illegal.
Conducting an investigation that has no basis is illegal.
Investigating people rather than crimes is illegal – or more accurately is outside the powers of government.
Using the IRS to engage in viewpoint descrimination is illegal.
Starting a criminal investigation without sufficient foundation that a crime occured is beyond the powers of government.
How are we worse than three years back ?
Your argument appears to be that because TDS exists, TDS is justified.
By nearly every measure we are better today than in the past.
We can debate the extent to which Trump is responsible for the improvement.
But there is no debate that things have improved.
You are once again trying to convert political disagreements into moral judgements and crimes.
That is possible, but it requires more than mere assertion.
Eugenics is a political position. It is also morally wrong.
Redistribution is a political position. It is also morally wrong.
Kant’s catagorical imperative is a philosophical and political position.
It is also morally correct.
I can make long arguments explaining each of those statements.
Often irrefutable ones.
It does not matter what you think or I think or what the professional spinners say. What matters are all the consequences that will add up over decades and what history will say. We can have another round of opinions in a year, five years,ten years, if you and I are still here
For every action, there is a reaction. So with a crude populist that undermines the office with offensive language creating a backlash on the left, my fear is not that a democrat will win, but the backlash will create a government controlled by the far left. Even though I think Biden is too liberal, I do not fear his political positions as much as others mentioned as possible democrat candidates.
But what I fear is this backlash will create a government that will go off the deep left end, much further than Obama did with Obamacare, E.O. regulations and further distruction of rights provided by the constitution.
And for every action, there is a reaction. That is why France now has the Yellow Vests. Wonder what will replace the MAGA hats when the far left captures our government?
Trumps election was a backlash to the hard left shift of democrats from 2008 through 2016.
You are now talking about the backlash to the backlash.
It is entirely unimportant what the farthest left 1/4 of the country wants or beleives or how angry they are.
What matters is the rest of us.
Dave, we have been over this multiple times. You believe people do not change their minds and I believe they do. I believe there are enough people in FL, WI, PA and OH, with additional individuals in NC and other purple states (given that even sheriffs in strong red counties in NC lost this time because of Trump backlash), that the handful of voters in those states will shift and the electoral college will once again elect a Democrat.
there is no doubt in my mind that the democrat will carry the popular vote again. It is the 2-3 states with razor thin margins that I think will shift.
We can stop debating this now and wait until 2020 election, or we can continue debating this with neither of us changing our minds.
Ron, I do not recall saying people do not change their minds.
I absolutely beleive they do.
Trump would have never been elected had they not changed their minds.
Absolutely the electorate is dynamic – and particularly near the center – which is one of the real reasons that the center is of critical importantance.
Not so much to form a new ideology but to weigh in on whether it is the left or the right that is correct on a given issue.
I have constantly ranted that the truth is NOT usually in the middle,
But that the truth as a whole is a collection of smaller truths – in some instances the left is correct, in others the right is.
And that is mostly what we should seek – when and what issues to go with the left and when the right, not compromise.
That is a simplifacation. Because quite often netiehr the left or right are “correct”, but one is more correct than the other, nor is that partially correct postion improved by compromise, because the actual truth is not in the center.
We are all going to be spending the next two years trying to predict 2020.
Worse the facts we know paint an impossible to reconcile picture
Republics do appear to have a growing “women” problem since Trump’s election.
Where democrats are more moderate and profess to seek to work together with republicans they do very well – as reflected by the much better than expected performance of democrats in the house.
I will openly and honestly admit that even aside from irregularities such as CA ballot harvesting, which provide mostly single instance tactical advantages, That in small races “moderate” democrats did extremely well.
At the same time the Republican performance in the the senate strongly suggests that statewide and nationally Republicans – and particularly Trump affiliated republicans also outperformed expectations.
I will also note another factor – one that I have been wrong about thus far, but I think that ultimately I will prove right about.
I do not beleive that Trump Derangement Syndrome is sustainable. That is essentially what doomed republicans in 1998. It does not work differently for democrats today.
Democrats lost in 2016 for a variety of reasons, none of which had anything to do with the reasons they beleive they lost.
A backlash against Identity politics is just one of many large reasons democrats lost.
Nothing has changed.
It is worth noting that the democratic victories in the house are driven by candidates that did NOT embrace identity politics. While the bigger state and national losses are by candidates who were less distanced from identity politics.
The democratic party post 2016 has NOT taken a good look at why it lost. Atleast not outside of these local house elections – and the party does NOT appear to be getting the message from either its victories or its losses.
I do not hate Pelosi and she is not the epitomy of the problem.
But it is a mistake for democrats to rename her as speaker.
Democratic leadership has a huge divide between it and those successful new democrats.
Those who brought democrats the house in november need to take charge. Not the ossified Pelosi, Nadler, Cummings, Waters and Schiff. Being in a safe “peoples republic” district, is not the criteria for leadership.
In other areas – there appears to be evidence that a significant portion of “trump voters” sat out 2018. Overall Trump’s support in the rust belt – despite the election has not changed – if anything it may be up.
Further Trump has – both in 2016 and even now, stronger support among minorities than most republicans – which is odd given the constant identity politics nonsense.
I also think that the continued Trump hysteria is a sign of desparation not strenght.
I am not a big Kanye fan and I do not think he is particularly politically sophisticated.
But I do think that the strong effort to silence him and any other prominent minority and womens voices that depart from leftist political dogma is important – it is a sign of weakness not strength.
I think the fact that 300K single black women with kids in charter schools quietly voter for DeSantis over Gillium is a big deal and republicans need to take note.
Many minorities are moving to voting their ACTUAL interests not the ideology of the left or the history of their race.
That also bodes well for Trump and republicans in 2020.
My analysis of 2018 – which is just my spitballing based on what I read and trying to glean consequence, is that in local contests where local issues matter and democratic candidates were solid moderates and the election was NOT about Trump or national issues, Democrats did incredibly well.
But in nearly every election where Trump was clearly the issue – or where some other personal interest matter – like a democrat threatening to close charter schools, republicans did well.
If the economy falters between now and 2020 – Trump will have an uphill fight.
But if it does not – I think democrats are in serious trouble.
It is increasingly evident that not only is the mueller investigation a farce, but the whole thing was a sham from the begining.
I may not be able to persuade left wing nuts that none of the purported criminality they have found is real crimes, but it is self evident to most people that no matter how purportedly damning any rhetoric from Mueller may be, that he has come up with far less on Trump and those things are of fart less consequence than what Starr came up with on whitewater.
We all know what Perjury is. We also know that successfully talking another witness into lying under oath is really really bad.
Clinton incontrovertably did those. Was impeached but was not convicted,
And most of the public did not care. They accepted that Clinton’s conduct was bad, even criminal, but it was not germain to whether he should be impeached.
I may personally disagree, but that was the decision.
Mueller has MUCH less regarding Trump. Anything Mueller claims Trump may have done is atleast as mundane as Clinton is less germain, and even more important is not incontrovertably criminal.
Absent democrats adding some substance to this – continuing this all trump all the time strategy is a recipe for disaster in 2020.
Most of the anti-trump posts even here rest on the premise that Trump is an evil person, and therefore is not entitled to the benefit of the slightest doubt, that the “evidence” that we see, and the serious allegations made must mean that even bigger things remain hidden from us. That Trump like Clinton – though even more successfully has so many hidden skeltons that we can shose to beleive things are worse than they are because of all the hidden evidence that we have not yet seen, but will eventually.
It is the politics and logic of drawing conclusions based on the evil we hope to discover.
I have zero doubt that if Democrats go after Trump full bore, that they will find more things like the daniels NDA.
Behavior by trump that they do not like but is only criminal if you stretch the law to make half the country felons.
If after two more years of democratic investigations that is all that the left has – they are going to be eviscerated in 2020.
So one of the really really big questions is in the great pool of the unknown regarding Trump what is the left going to discover in the next 2 years ?
I am sure that if you ask Jay or Roby – they have zero doubt that all kinds of skeletons will fall out of the closet.
I think that is a particularly disturbing version of wishful thinking.
I think a deep investigation of Trump is going to go exactly as it has thus far.
It is going to go like a deep investigation of McDonalds hoping to prove they lace their burgers with cocaine.
It requires beleiving that those engaged in free trade are inherently evil.
That looking out for your own self interest is morally bankrupt and produces bad outcomes,
that man is inherently evil and but for government would always choose bad over good.
That is the core of progressivism today. It is also self contradictory – if man is basically evil government is not merely made of men, but inherently attracts the worst of me.
So how is it that government magically gets past its own bad nature and makes us all better ?
The reality is that constrained from using force or fraud free exchange AND self interest is an incredibly powerful force for good.
That those doing business are with few exceptions not evil and that whether they violate some regulations of laws or not, that their focus is to deliver the most value to their consumers as possible – because that is what will most benefit them.
Absolutely 2 years of further investigating Trump will produce numerous instances where talking heads and left wing nut laws using broad interpretations of assorted laws and regulations claim offenses like tax fraud, But none of these will ever prove clear. Nothing will rise even tot he level of Clinton’s proveable misconduct.
Not because Trump is magically morally superior. But because as I keep saying – absent the ability to use force or Fraud, free exchange NATURALLY drives us to “the public good”.
The real public good – raising our standard of living.
Not the aphorisms the left uses to justify idiotic laws.
Some things we debate are oppinions.
Some are not.
I have a different read of the tea leaves than you do.
That is an opinion.
You can not “lie” about oppinions, though you can be wrong.
Some things are facts or are at the lest driven by relatively clear cause effect relationships.
Those we can be wrong about. Those people can lie about.
Those can have moral and/or scientific foundations.
This is not one of those.
You do not get to assume consequences.
You are obligated to demonstrate them.
The left is constantly telling us that this policy or that will have positive consequeces.
But we can not use force justified merely by the beleif there will be good results.
You must demonstrate that – and even that is not alone sufficient, though it is necescary.
The left repeatedly tells us to fear something because what we are told it will bring in the future or to embrace something because of what we are told it will bring in the future.
Faith is not an argument.
Will it be an Orange Xmas for Anti-Trumpers?
Just crap or get off the pot!
If there is something there, charge him!
If there is not, then move on!
Both parties have no interest for the betterment of the country. It is just what makes it better for them. This is exactly why the founders shunned party labels, only to see them take hold.
Just now:
“I was aware” that lying to FBI investigators was a crime when interviewed in January 2017, Michael Flynn tells the judge.
Flynn’s attorney also told the judge that Flynn “has no intention to withdraw the guilty plea.”
Jay, fine, Flynn was convicted. Where is Russian collusion?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-flynn-investigation/
If someone not telling an FBI agent in an informal setting a chargable offense, then its time to investigate every damn politician in Washington. Best way the clean house!
18 US 1001 is NOT confined to FBI agents, or to formal settings.
There is a big stink about Page and Strzok’s phones at the moment,
Muellers office reviewed them (while the IG investigation was ongoing), determined there was nothing relevant on them and permantly wiped them
They then told the IG when asked that they had found nothing and then wiped them.
If Page and/or Strzok texts that would have been on those phones are somehow later found – and given that texts are stored by both senders and receiptients, it is likely that the IG will or has recovered some of those texts. and any are found to be relevant, than Mueller’s staff is guilty of violating 18 US 1001.
Any member of the federal govenrment – including people in the IRS or Border Patrol or Fish and Game, that is “investigating” would be someone you can not make a false statement to.
This is an overly broad and stupid law.
There is CASE LAW, that restricts 18us1001 to instances where the “agent” is seeking the truth, as opposed to those where they already know the truth and are seeking to trap someone in a lie to gain leverage.
That would absolutely apply to Flynn, Papadoulis and Corsi
As I have repeated before – concuring with Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Alan Derschowitz,
When the prosecutor in the process of investigating is manufacting new crimes, – particularly where there is no credible evidence of an underlying crime, not only is the law not violated, but the behavior of the prosecutor is misconduct.
All this is, is a permutation of “we investigate crimes not people”.
The law allows a criminal defendent to withdraw a guilty plea right through sentencing – and in some cases afterwards.
Withdrawing the plea is up to Flynn alone not the court.
Flynn can tell the judge he is not doing so – and then later do so.
As I noted – up to a point that has not passed that is entirely in Flynn’s control.
It has always been highly unlikely that Flynn would withdraw his plea.
He plead to escape having himself and his family destroyed by Mueller.
He has been completely open about that.
Nothing has changed.
I have zero doubt he would withdrawl the plea in a minute if he could be certain that Mueller would leave him alone.
Just to be clear – because it is important in many other areas.
Lying to the FBI is NOT a crime.
Here is the code section.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
There is nothing specific to the FBI,
It as an example applies to Mueller if he misrepresented anything regarding Strzok and Pages phones to the IG.
Beyond that – case law further constrains it. And that actually applies SPECIFICALLY to the claimed circumstances here.
Caselaw requires that any misrepresentation to government agents must be of a fact that the government does nto already know.
That is SPECIFICALLY to avoid instances like this.
There is an excellent editorial by Alan Derschowitz – as well as opinions by Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and former WhiteWater Special counsel noting that the intent of the law is NOT to allow prosecutors to bully witnesses. BOTH note that the law does NOT allow – precisely what is occuring here, and more broadly in the Mueller investigation, for a zealous prosecutor to use the law as a means of gaining leverage over witnesses and to manufacture crimes.
As I keep telling you over and over and you keep ignoring, In the US we investigate CRIMES, not people. when ever you have an investigation that is trying to get people, that is manufacturing crimes that only exist because of the investigation – then the failure is on the part of the prosecutor, not those being investigated.
18 US 1001 is a tool to allow government agents to get to the truth.
If they already know the truth 18 US 1001 DOES NOT APPLY.
As noted before – Nepalatono and Mukasey are correct The Conduct of Comey, McCabe and Strzok is NOT entrappment. HOWEVER it WAS MISCONDUCT.
I do not know what Sulivan will do.
My GUESS is that he is going to rake Mueller and Comey and McCabe and Strzok over the coals, But he is going to uphold the plea.
He is going to tell Flynn that if he does nto like that – the appropriate legal action is to withdrawl the plea, that he does nto feel he is empowered to throw out the charges against Flynn so long as Flynn does not withdraw his guilty plea.
That is my Guess.
But Sulivan is not predictable – he is less outspoken than Ellis, but he is far more suspicious of the FBI and has thrown out convictions in the past over misconduct.
There are also several factual issues we do not know here – though there are rumors.
Sullivan ordered Mueller to provide Flynn with Brady material.
That would mean that Mueller was REQUIRED by the court to turn over to Flynn all the 302’s and all the information that he has related to this “lie” claim.
Mueller is actually required to do so by law regardless, But Sullivan makes a point of ordering it because he is tellegraphing to prosecutors that there will be consequences if they do not.
Prosecutors routinely DO NOT provide brady material, and they routinely get away with it even though it is prosecutorial misconduct.
My guess is that Mueller DID NOT, and that is one of the reasons for Sullivans recent demand to see the 302’s
If that is true and there is anything even mildly exculpatory in what Mueller did not provide – Sullivan is going to be incredibly POED.
That is the most likely scenario in which this gets dismissed.
There are all kinds of rumours now floating about the FBI 302’s regarding Flynn.
If only some of those rumors are true – there is a huge problem for Mueller.
Those “rumours” are:
That no 302’s were filed until August 2017. 7 months after the interview.
That the filed 302’s do not reference the issue of sanctions.
i.e. that Flynn’s purported “lie” is not identified in the original 302, and that allegation was not made until Strzok was interviewed by Mueller in August of 2017.
No matter what it appears the 302 concerning Flynn was quite unusally handled.
This is also consistent with the fact that there are emails and testimony that McCabe Comey, and Strzok did not think Flynn lied.
To be clear it is probably not debatable that Flynn did not inform Pence of the fact that sanctions were discussed.
That is NOT a lie, but it is potentially grounds for Flynn’s dismissal.
Though weak ones.
Yates, Comey and McCabe inarguably sent Strzok in to “Get” Flynn – they have ultimately openly admitted that.
It is surprising that Flynn was so stupid as to fall for this. It is known that McCabe has a personal grudge against Flynn, and it is known that the Obama administration hated Flynn for his opposition to the Iran deal, and heated that Flynn was coming in and would get to tank the Iran deal.
It would be wise for you to quit pretending that these people who have been pretty open about their petty personal grudges, do not have petty personal grudges.
But Strzok returned saying Flynn had not lied, McCabe is on the record saying Flynn had not lied, Comey is on the record saying Flynn had not lied.
Then suddenly months AFTER Mueller is appointer. Mueller claims that Flynn lied.
If I were to guess – there is no actual evidence that Flynn lied. There is no 302 showing that Flynn lied. That Mueller is extrapolating from Flynn did not tell Pence when he should have, to Flynn ;ied to Strzok when asked. I am not sure that Strzok asked. I am not sure that if Strzok asked he recorded Flynn’s answer.
Finally and entirely independently.
At the time of the interview – Flynn was NSA.
It is arguable that Flynn was NOT obligated to provide this information to Strzok.
While both hold security clearances, there is no clear “need to know” on the part of Strzok or the FBI. Brennan and Clapper have lied under oath to the house and senate about national security matters. Thought I think they should have been terminated for that (not prosecuted),
there are plenty of circumstances under which someone in government can lie – to the public, to an FBI agent or under oath one of those is about classified information where the other party does not have a need to know.
Redactions aboud in all of this – so it is crystal clear we are dealing with national security.
Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak is near the highest level of classification.
Demonstrating a “need to know” and sufficient clearance to access the information is Strzok’s job – not Flynn’s.
Nor do we know where this interview took place.
Much is made by Comey about “setting up Flynn” and that normally the Whitehouse counsel would be involved. – but it is more complex than that.
If the interview involved classified information – which obviously it did.
it is the FBI that is obligated to inform Flynn that the questions were of a classified nature and that the interview would have to be conducted persuant to that.
I had a TS/SCI – that is near the highest security clearance in the federal govenrment.
If I travelled to NSA or SIAC or somewhere else where I would participate in a classified discussion, there were days of preparation. My FSA had to send my security information to FSA of those holding the meeting, a secure location for the converstation had to be setup.
the parameters of the discussion had to be established before hand. Basically there were a whole raft of rules.
Put simply the FBI, NSA, SIAC or anyone else could not call me up say we are going to meet you in your office and expect to be able to discuss whatever they wanted – not even FBI agents.
It is littlerally in the instructions regarding security clearances that rather than provide classified information under circumstances where the environment, parameters, and bonefides of those talking are not established – and NOT merely by me, but by a separate FSA, then I am expected to lie.
I do not agree with Napolitano, but more importantly he did not say what you claim.
First, Cohen plead guilty to a campaign finance law violation and identified Trump as a co-conspirator. That probably reaches the level necescary to get an indictment.
But the fact that Cohen plead guilty does not mean that an actual crime was committed.
I know of real instances where people plead guilty to crimes – it was actually possible to prove they did not commit. They did so knowingly, and law enforcement and the court knew they were lying. But they plead guilty in order to avoid prosecution for a crime they DID commit. Their guilty plea – can be used as evidence to indict purported co-conspirators.
But it does nto change the fact that no real crime actually took place.
Further Mueller himself has a horrendous problem because he keeps taking plea deals for lying. That completely destroys the usefulness of that person as a witness.
This is not a smoking gun.
I have no idea what Mueller will do.
But this remains a nothing burger.
That was Flynn at the trial I quoted, dummy
Flynn has not been tried. It is unlikely he will be tried.
Can you please use words accurately.
And again I am not interested in what you say somebody said.
Provide an actual link.
When you can not accurately tell the difference between a trial and a hearing, and a plea hearing and a proceeding, and a meeting with the judge, how am I supposed to trust that you have a quote accurate ?
You have repeatedly misquoted me. And then used some ludicrous misinterpretation of what I have said as a claim that I lied when simply accurately quoting would make it apparent that is wrong.
Put simply – when you say someone else said something you have less credibility than Trump.
Sorry Dave, I thought you were replying to the comment about Flynn, not the Fox Judge
I do not know about you – but I get emails of comments that I respond to.
Those emails quote the remarks I am responding to.
Further Napalitono is NOT currently a sitting judge. Nor do I beleive Mukasey is.
They did not speak in a trial.
There is no Trial.
I do not care about your appology.
Except to note that you demand incredible precision in terms of language from Flynn, from me, from Trump.
But you do not write with anything close to that precision yourself, nor do you expect that precision from those you support.
I make a big deal about language precision, not because I wish to nail people to the wall,
But because it is MORALLY WRONG to nail others to the wall using imprecise language.
When we discuss law – in most any context where we are going to pass judgement over whether laws have been violated or not, then we MUST speak precisely and NARROWLY.
Doing less makes EVERYONE a criminal.
When you move to protect one minority group, you negatively impact others. Nice to see those that understand rights stand up against the lefts attacks on rights.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/12/218542/harvard-sorority-fraternity-lawsuits
I also heard on a news segment another case has been filed based on the constitutions right to freedom of association. Basically students can not be punished for associating with non sactioned organizations who have not been shown to break any laws.
But the left will keep trying to whittle away on rights, from the local community to the federal level and everywhere inbetween.
We share the same fear on this count. It is only one of the avenues of grim long term trump consequences. Time will tell. This may be the last hurrah of conservatives as we have known them. If so it will be because theye disgusted the center with their empowerment of all the flaws in Trump’s character.and actions. The left cannot beat the right without the strong support of the center. The house. Results should be a warning but will conservatives hear it?
My response went below the wrong comment ron.should have gone one comment higher.
Roby, no problem where something shows up. I dont use the website to read anything as that is impossible to follow are harder to link comments to logically. I use the email to readband only use website when I click “reply” or pos t a new comment
As for your comment about “moderates”, independant s” etc, I can dream that one day a third party will aplear and a sensible candidate will be elected.
Dont tell me about your fears.
FACTS, LOGIC, REASON.
Tyrants have tried to use fears to leverage power since the begining of time.
Hitler exploited and inflamed fear of jews.
The left correctly notes Trump uses fear of foreigners,
The left itself uses fear of Trump.
It is not what is feared that matters, it is what is fact.
Jews are not a threat to anyone.
I am still asking for evidence that Trump is a threat to anyone.
Mass immigration is inarguably disruptive.
There is a justifiable fear.
The relevant question then becomes what do we do.
Accepting mass immigration and disruption is an actual alternative.
But that is an alternative that has consequences, and those need to be debated honestly in public by those championing mass immigration.
Don;t try to sell me fear. Make a valid argument using facts, logic reason.
Why – using facts, should I “fear” trump.
Why – using facts, is he “unfit”.
Why – using facts is he the most immoral president ever – or whatever your claim of the day is.
Roby, I think you will find that conserrvatism will survive Trump and thrive – because or despite him.
But the left is in serious trouble.
They stand for nothing.
Being against Trump is not a future.
Trump won because voters rejected what little the left stood for.
That has not changed in the slightest.
If we replace a contest between the evil Hillary and the Evil Trump with two less troublesome candidates, All other things being equal – the republican would have won.
Trump was the candidate Clinton wanted to run against
Democrats Thought Trump would be easy to beat.
He wasn’t.
Changing Trump will not change the core problem wth the democratic party.
Further it is a problem that is getting worse not better.
Democrats won the house by running more moderate democrats – “new democrats” who vowed to not be robots for their party. Who vowed to rbing something different to the house.
Yet, the “old” democrats will soon control the house.
That bodes horribly for those “new” democrats in 2020.
As the effectiveness of indentitiy politics declines, and as the outrage burns out – where will the left be ?
I would further note this election was very confusing.
It is pretty clear – despite some troublesome voting issues, that the people want the democrats to control the house.
But it is equally clear that the people want the republicans to control the senate.
It is also clear that people were in large numbers splitting tickets all over the place.
This was not a blue wave election.
It was an election where both sides can see good and bad.
Republicans are going to find it much easier to confirm Trump nominees and judges.
But there is unlikely to be any significant new legislation.
The left does not have the support of the center.
I do not think the trump outrage is going to win an election in 2020.
But even if it did, outrage at Trump is NOT support for the left.
Trump is polling at the same point as Obama at this time in his presidency – despite a press that is measurably 3 times more hostile.
I did it again. Got stuck on the prior thread.
“Russian 2016 Influence Operation Targeted African-Americans on Social Media”
“Of 81 Facebook pages created by the Internet Research Agency in the Senate’s data, 30 targeted African-American audiences, amassing 1.2 million followers, the report finds. By comparison, 25 pages targeted the political right and drew 1.4 million followers. Just seven pages focused on the political left, drawing 689,045 followers.
While the right-wing pages promoted Mr. Trump’s candidacy, the left-wing pages scorned Mrs. Clinton while promoting Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. The voter suppression effort was focused particularly on Sanders supporters and African-Americans, urging them to shun Mrs. Clinton in the general election and either vote for Ms. Stein or stay home.”
NYT
No force, no guns, no crime, just persuasion by those you do not like.
If that pisses of the american people – they can respond with their vote.
There is nor should not be any other remedy for persuasion.
Wait for it- Quid Pro Quo coming up, first Trump connection: “Prosecutors charge 2 involved in Flynn’s Turkish lobbying”
“Kian, whose full name is Bijan Rafiekian, was arrested and made an initial appearance Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. He is indicted on charges including failing to register as a foreign agent. Alptekin, a dual Turkish-Dutch citizen living in Istanbul whose full name is Kamil Ekim Alpetekin, remains at large.
According to the indictment, Kian was vice chairman of Flynn’s business group, the Flynn Intel Group. The two worked throughout 2016 to seek ways to have cleric Fethullah Gulen extradited from the U.S. to Turkey”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/flynn-associate-arrested-illegal-lobbying-charges-59863489
Meantime the potential for a deal on Syria, and or Turkey’s rage against SA with Erdogan:
“At least one faction in the White House is pushing to give Turkey’s tyrannical Recep Tayyip Erdogan the head he wants most in order to get him to shut up about the Saudi murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. President Trump needs to stomp on these idiots, hard.
At least one faction in the White House is pushing to give Turkey’s tyrannical Recep Tayyip Erdogan the head he wants most in order to get him to shut up about the Saudi murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. President Trump needs to stomp on these idiots, hard.”
https://nypost.com/2018/11/15/the-white-houses-sick-bid-to-bribe-turkeys-tyrant/
This WordPress thread too crowded: not posting all my comments.
I have same problem when using hand held device. No problem when using desk top. Why? Who knows, only WordPress has this problem!
Me too, Ron ( not #metoo!) No problems at all on my desktop, but weird error messages, if I try to post from my phone.
FLYNN:
Flynn told the judge that he did indeed know that it was a crime to lie to the FBI. He also says he doesn’t want to formally challenge the FBI’s interview of him.
Here Come The Judge:
Judge Sullivan: On the “very serious crime,” you “can’t minimize that.”
“Arguably, you sold your country out. The court is going to consider all that.” —@MSNBC
Full Judge quote: “All along, you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States …That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out. “
in presuming the quote is accurate, it means something RADICALLY different from what you claimsed.
It is also a false statement.
Flynn was an advisor to the president and National security advisor effective Jan 20, 2017 I beleive.
No one has alleged he was an unregistered agent of a foreign country at that time.
I am further disturbed if Sulivan cited that.
FARA is likey unconstitutional – particularly if understood this broadly.
It is trivially arguable that Bill and Hillary Clinton were unregistered agents of a foreign country while clinton was running for president by any interpretation that makes Flynn one.
I would further note that the claim that Flynn “sold out your country” is a presumption that the actions Flynn was taking were NOT in the interest of the country.
That is a judgement that prosecutors and judges do not get to make.
Otherwise as a legal matter we could say that everyone in the Obama administration who negotiated with Iran “sold out your country”
It is my understanding of the claims regarding Flynn and Turkey, that Flynn was a paid go between of the Turks and various US government agencies.
In otherwords he was working to accomplish something that would make BOTH happy.
There is no claim that he bribed anyone.
We are back to this stupid leftist nonsense that engaging in persuasion that you do not like is somehow a crime.
Every single thing that I am aware of that Bill Clinton did regarding Russia during the obama administration was LEGAL – whether it was prudent or not is a different question.
Every single thing that the Clinton foundation is alleged to have done was LEGAL.
If there is a crime at all, it is in what Hillary Clinton and those in the state department did.
The first amendment prohibits government viewpoint discrimination.
That would explicitly prohibit government from interfering with those outside of government engaging in any form of advocacy for others – even foreigners.
Claims that a private party “sold out their government” are ludicrously stupid.
They presume that you can read and judge peoples unexpressed intentions.
Is there anyone on the planet outside the left that beleives that anything that Gen Flynn did intentionally harmed the US ?
We have John Kerry trying to negotiate with Iran almost as we speak.
He is doing so counter to the interests of the current administration.
He is clearly violating the unconstitutional logan act.
Yet no one is (or should be) looking to jail Kerry or claiming he “sold out his country”.
Engaging in persuasion – even engaging in paid persuasion for a foreign interest, even attempting to persuade whatever the current administration is that they are WRONG, is NOT “selling out your country”
To do that you must either be inside the administration.
It is not the Clinton Foundation that “sold out their country” when the CF functioned as a paid back door to the state department. it is those in the state department that did so.
Just to be clear – If Flynn was actually working for Turkey at the same time as he was actually Trump’s NSA or he was doing so while he was part of the Obama administration,
Then and only then are the remarks you are claiming Sulivan made true.
And if that is the case – Flynn should go to jail for a long time.
AND the same thing should be true of those within the Clinton state department who were concurrently working for Clinton foundation, and/or serviing the interests of the Clinton Foundation or benefiting from it.
Absent force or fraud the actions of private people are not crimes. EVER, Whether they are paid or not. You can not “sell out your country” without using force or fraud.
Unless Sulivan knows something that the rest of us do not, that has NEVER been reported, then “you sold your country out ” is a false and highly biased statement.
I would greatly appreciate a source link – as you often provide quotes or paraphrases that are false.
Absolutely NO ONE is claiming that Flynn was not permitted to have the convesation he had with Kislyak.
Absolutely NO ONE is claiming that anything in that conversation was inappropriate.
Asbolutely NO ONE is claiming that Flynn brought up sanctions or made any committment to Kislyak regarding Sanctions.
Even Mueller is NOT claiming that Flynn “sold his country out”.
I am guessing your source is as Trump calls it the “fake NY Times” but they are behind a paywall.
The actual evidence that we have all seen publicly – we have not seen what Sulivan has seen, is that Yates, Comey, McCabe, Strzok and later Mueller have committed prosecutorial misconduct.
We have an asseriton that Flynn “lied” to the FBI, as well as actual public under oath testimony that he did not.
What is a lie and what is not – is NOT determined soley by the last prosecutor to look at the issue. When 3 of 4 people involved in prosecuting say something is not a lie,
then when the 4th proceeds – they are by definition over reaching.
You should keep up with the news.
Exactly as I asserted – Sullivan got the timeline wrong, and has now walked back both this and another disparaging remark he has made regarding Flynn and has delayed sentencing until march.
I have no idea what Sulivan is going to do. He is a very respected judge – and one who is familiar with prosecutorial misconduct.
His remarks today were intemperate, full of error and factually incorrect.
They demonstrated a bias against Flynn.
But Sullivan appears to recognize that error and has retracted the statements and significantly delayed sentencing. It is certainly not appropriate for him to impose sentence until he has corrected his own understanding of the facts – and he seems to grasp that.
All of us make mistakes.
How we deal with those is one test of character.
Sullivan appears to be demonstrating character.
Would that Mueller would develop some.
Keep investigating traitors, miscreants, collaborators, and the Dickhead In Office…
(Another Conservative speaks)
https://twitter.com/bradthor/status/1075075153992826880?s=21
Brad Thor should read his own books – I have and like them alot.
One of the lead characters in many Thor books is Scot Harvath a former Seal and now a clandestine operative for a private company that secretly serves the president.
Essentially Nixon’s “plumbers”.
While Harvath is absolutely “the good guy”, his actions would land him in leavenworth for life.
Put simply – Thor knows better than what he is saying.
Put simply, he knows up from down better than you do.
You’re on the wrong side of the divide.
Look at all the people you once admired/agreed with who now you claim are wrong. They’re all waving bye-bye to you, as you drift away toward the horizon of irrelevancy
Right and wrong are determined by actual expressible principles and facts, not your personal sense of moral superiority.
If you are unable to make an argument without resorting to ad hominen that is compelling evidence that you are wrong. When the argument is about morality ethics or the law – your inability to make you argument with facts rather than insults is prima facia evidence of your own immorality.
This is not about who I “once admired” – I still admire these and many other people.
I do not make moral or legal judgement based on some bizzare “consensus”.
You do know what an appeal to authority is – it is a fallacy.
People are imperfect – they make mistakes – particularly when they respond off the cuff, do not check facts or are dealing with things that fit into their preconceptions.
I can respect Meryl Streep as an actor – without giving her political oppinions much weight.
I can respect Brad Thor as an author, without giving his political oppinions much weight.
I am disappointed at Sulivans off the cuff remarks in court – because they are so obviously wrong. But I will reserve judgement for what he actually writes in any decision – things that he hopefully thinks about before saying.
Regardless of what you feel about Sulivan – he remark is obviously false because his words can not be reconciled with the facts. There is a significant time line error in his remarks.
So should we prosecute Sulivan for a clearly innaccurate statement ?
While not under oath he is a judge and his remarks are expected to be near perfect,
isn’t his error even more serious that what is alleged regarding Flynn ?
Obviously Sulivan should not be charged or prosecuted for such an error.
And that is the point, neither should Flynn,
Absent an ACTUAL underlying crime, absent intentionally and actually misleading investigators, we should not criminalize lack of precision.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/california-companies-leave-taxes/
Please no more Californian companies to North Carolina. We dont need any more liberals bringing their tax and spend policies here. They keave high tax states to avoid high taxes, then demand liberal programs that increase spending and taxes. Stay put and fix CA. Stop moving and messing up states like Texas is getting screwed up!
The Notorious RBG on the unconstitutionality of 18cfg1001 and the Mueller investigation
https://www.nysun.com/editorials/time-to-reject-general-flynns-guilty-plea/90500/
Snore. ZZZZZ. Yawn.
Written yesterday the editorial describes a “no-nonsense United States district judge.” In fact Judge Sullivan is a conservative by-the-book judge who in the past has been hard on prosecutors.
Here’s what he said today:
““All along, you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security advisor to the president of the United States,” Sullivan told Flynn, according to NBC News. “That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out. I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. This is a very serious offense. A high ranking senior official of the government making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while in the White House. Very serious crime. “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain.”
Where in that do you see an iota of hint that the judge believes the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional? As you are prone to do you’ll disagree with the judge’s statement above – because you’re just oh so much more legally astute than he is. The judge heard the evidence, saw the subsequent requested documentation, and concluded that Flynn committed a VERY SERIOUS CRIME while in the White House. I can’t wait for your blabbermouth tapestries of contradiction. Tell us how beneficial it was to the nation for Flynn to Surreptitiouslay keep in contact with Russian associates when serving as the national security advisor – I wonder if he shared that info with Trump?
If you were reasonable And open minded you’d be applauding Mueller for uncovering Flynn’s behavior while employed at the highest level of government, condemning him for ‘selling’ out the nation. But I’m sure you’ll disagree…
Since you desparately want to trade quotes:
The counts that really got our attention in the Stewart indictment are numbers three and four, in which Ms. Stewart is charged with violating Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. That is the federal law that provides for a fine or up to five years in prison for anyone who “knowingly and willfully” makes any materially false statement or representation “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.”
The law has been on the books since 1863, but it was amended and expanded by Congress in 1934 as the New Deal required more federal disclosures. Today, Section 1001 is well known as dangerous territory by legal experts on all sides of the American political spectrum, and it may well be worth a skeptical re-examination by Congress.
“Even in our age of ever expanding federal power, the reach of this statute and the discretion it lodges in prosecutors is awesome,” wrote a veteran federal prosecutor, Solomon Wisenberg, in an article about the law. Mr. Wisenberg, a conservative who served as deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater case and who is now in private practice in Washington, wrote, “The vast majority of federal agents and attorneys are honorable people who would not intentionally abuse this statute.…But the potential for abuse of this statute is great, even for normally honest people.”
a liberal Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg… in a concurring opinion in the 1996 Supreme Court case Brogan v. United States, warned of “the sweeping generality” of Section 1001’s language.
Justice Ginsburg wrote: “The prospect remains that an overzealous prosecutor or investigator — aware that a person has committed some suspicious acts, but unable to make a criminal case — will create a crime by surprising the suspect, asking about those acts, and receiving a false denial.”…
Justice Ginsburg wrote, “the Department of Justice has long noted its reluctance to approve §1001 indictments for simple false denials made to investigators.”
Ginsburg warned that the law’s “encompassing formulation arms Government agents with authority not simply to apprehend lawbreakers, but to generate felonies, crimes of a kind that only a Government officer could prompt.”
Brogan was about whether the statute clashed with the Fifth Amendment constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination, a right that goes all the way back to Maimonides.
Where do I see a hint ?
Suilivan Ordered that Mueller provide Flynn brady material.
That is routine for Sulivan but highly unusual for a federal judge.
That is because Sulican is ALREADY predisposed to distrust prosecutors.
He has presided over several bad prosecutions in the past – including ones where Mueller was involved
Where else – the law is another of those archaiac and unconstitutionally broad laws that are incredibly rarely used to prosecute anyone – because they are bad law.
I do not know what Sulivan is going to do – and neither do you.
We will know soon enough.
The most “telegraphing” thing I think Sullivan did was to ask Flynn whether he was withdrawing his plea.
Though I think there is legal room for him to toss the plea and sanction Mueller even if Flynn does not withdrawl the plea. I think the odds of that are near zero.
It is not likely Sulivan is sticking his neck out if Flynn does not either.
As to the rest – read the Ginsburg quotes from Brogan.
Ginsberg is warning that prosecutors will do EXACTLY what Mueller has done.
I am sure I can find myhriads of law review articles noting that 18US1001 is unconstitutional.
But it has been rarely – almost never used in the past.
And every single case in which it has EVER been used has been brought by one of 3 prosecutors – Comey (Martha Stewart), Fitzgerald (Scooter Libby) and repeatedly by Mueller.
To my knowledge no one – not even the prosecutors lister has EVER used it against anyone on the left under any circumstances. Nor has it ever been used by any other prosecutor.
Archaic laws that have never been used until recently and are now used with unusally broad interpretations – are presumptively unconstitutional.
I am going to contradict Sulivan and paraphrase the far more famous Lerhned Hand.
Lying to the FBI is not a crime, it is a civic duty!
Can you actually lose language correctly ?
While I have stated that the Mueller investivgation is unconstitutional – it violates the 4th amendment, That is not the issue before Sulivan. To a very limited extent that issue went in front of Ellis. Who punted on the issue of constitutionality, But determined that the investigation either met the requirements of the SC law – or could be corrected to meet those requirements with sufficient ease that he was not going to find against it. Ellis strongly suggested that the Mueller prosecution was unconstitutional, he in great length outlined whey it was but ultimately decided the issue was NOT before him, and even if it was that it was for higher courts to determine.
The constitutionality of the Mueller investigation is also NOT being decided by Sullivan.
You are too deluded by left wing courts which constantly decide issues that are not infront of them based on bizarre legal arguments no one made and then presume to apply them to the country. I would be very surprised if Sulivan did that.
Nor is Sulivan deciding to my knowledge the constitutionality of 18 US 1001.
I have not read Flynn’s brief’s nor can I tell what Flynn is arguing – because the judge keeps asking if Flynn wants to withdrawl his plea.
That is by far the most significant thing here.
Flynn appears to be asking Sulivan to unilaterally throw out the plea and sanction Mueller without asking him to do that.
I actually think that is appropriate. given what we know.
It is also possible that Flynn is trying to setup an appeal – and yes guilty pleas are appealable, but it is a very difficult uphill slog.
It is also near certain Flynn is setting up for a pardon – and though I think Trump will not act until the dust settles, I think that is near certain for Flynn, and probably Papadoulis.
What is this – you will disagree with a judges statement nonsense ?
First it is SELF EVIDENT that the statement you quoted – first does not mean what you initally claimed it did, and next is erroneous absent evidence we have not seen – and BTW it is near certain Sulivan has not seen either.
The other charges against Flynn have not been tried – they are settled by this agreement.
Legally Flynn is FOUND BY LAW innocent of all other charges except those he is pleading too – that is how a plea works. That is also why Flynn is unwilling to withdraw his plea.
The judge refering to conduct that Flynn is essentially found innocent of by plea is bias. It is a small bias, one that happens all the time. But it is still bias.
Further your assertion that Sulivan has seen evidence of Flynn’s purported other crimes is almost certainly in error. Flynn would not and has not asked for that and neither would mueller. That would be a LARGE predjudicial error.
Mueller may not present to the judge evidence of other crimes – because evidence must be presented at a trial through witnesses that can be cross examined by the defense.
A plea bargain is a type of contract with the government.
The defendant agrees to plead guilty of X in return for dismissal of all other charges.
Dismissing them means he is legally innocent. The prosecutor can not use evidence related to those charges unless the defendant fails to meet the terms of the plea agreement.
Even then there are complications for the porsecutor because you are in a nebulous area of double jeophardy in a plea agreement that involves cooperating with the prosecutor.
You are required to provide the prosecutor with everything you know – but the prosecutor can not use it against you. If the plea agreement goes south there will be a huge fight over what the prosecutor can and can not use.
Regardless, the prosecutor can not provide evidence of OTHER crimes to the judge.
Because Flynn is pleading guilty to 18 US 1001 the prosecutor can provide the judge all evidence that he has of that praticular crime and only that crime regarding sentencing.
It is possible that Sulivan has seen other things, the rules get violated alot.
But I think it is unlikely.
You can assume credibly that Sulivan knows alot more about Flynn lying to the FBI than the rest of us. You can not presume he knows anything more about anything else.
The allegation that Flynn “sold out his country” is false based on the public evidence, and it is unlikely that Sulivan knows something about that we do not.
And I would not presume to know what Sulivan is thinking from his remarks.
Lets get some stuff clear.
Do you think it is ever illegal for anyone to talk to the Russian Ambassador ?
Do you think it is ever illegal to talk to anyone “sureptitiously” ?
If so – what is Bill Clinton and John Kerry not in jail ?
Ignoring the other ludicrous allegations the claim here is that Gen. Flynn the incoming NSA during the transition at the direction of other in the incoming administration took a phone call from Amb. Kislyak (while on vacation in the carabean and without secure phone service) and that during that conversation Kislyack raised the question of sanctions and Flynn told him discussions of sanctions would have to wait until Trump took office.
To my knowledge there is absolutely zero debate about the above facts. No one,. left or right is arguing about any of those facts.
There are a tiny number of people on the left – including AG Yates who claimed this was a crime, a logan act violation. No one has ever been charged with violating the logan act
If you want to argue logan act then we are going to have to jail manafort, Podesta, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, ……
If you are going to try to tell me that any of those can do as they did but that Flynn can not take a call from Kislyak – you are morally bankrupt and hypocritical.
So can we be done with this nonsense that Flynn’s communications with anybody were a crime ?
Flynn was fired/resigned because APPARENTLY he failed to mention to Pence that Kislyak had brought up sanctions.
Yates made a huge stink about this. Making stupid logan act arguments as well as claiming that Flynn could be blackmailed by the russians – which is pretty much makes you wonder how Yates graduated from College much less law school.
You can not black mail someone fo a legal act. And you can not balck mail someone for something you can not know that they did – fail to tell Pence – unless you already have the whitehouse so thoroughly compromised that you would not need to blackmail them.
And it is near impossible to blackmail someone – particularly someone who in the past risked their job over a matter of principle, using the threat that they might lose their job.
I am in no rush to jump on Sulivan, I am not prepared to saint Flynn and put him into the same catagory as McCain. But the man is a 3 star general and won the bronze star 3 times.
Accusing him of selling out the country on the basis of the known facts is offensive.
So we are all the way to the meeting with Strzok and there is nothing prior to that that Flynn has done that is a crime. Quite frankly there is nothing that constituted a basis for firing him, and Trump did not understand that either, and neither do I to this day.
This whole mess was a deliberate setup by current and former Obama people to “get Flynn” partly because he had in the past opposed Obama’s Iran policy and was going to eviscerate it in the future. It was also personal for McCabe because Flynn had provided a character reference for a female SAC that he worked with in the mideast that McCabe had sexually harrased and demoted, and who filed a discrimination lawsuit against McCabe.
This had very little to do with Trump. Flynn was targeted for nasty personal and political reasons.
Are you OK with that ? I am not.
Today – we still do not appear to have any of the 302’s from immediately after the interview. They either were never created or they have been misplaced or lost.
If I am wrong about that it has not made the news.
That is extremely troubling. Based on that fact alone, this whole mess is dubious.
Over the next 7 months we have testimony and emails and texts from Strzok, McCabe, and Comey indicated that Flynn was TRUTHFUL, Then in August a new 302 is created by Muellers team interviewing Strzok, and NOW there is a claim that Flynn lied to Strzok 7 months earlier. There is no contemporaneous record of Flynn’s conversation with Strzok.
Yes, Flynn has a serious problem – which is what is wrong with this entire mess and why this is prosecutorial misconduct.
He must either plead guilty to a crime that quite frankly and quite obviuously he did not commit, or he must bankrupt himself and risk Mueller prosecuting his family.
And you think that Flynn is the crook ?
Grow some integrity.
Absent evidence no one has yet seen – this is a Mueller integrity problem.
This is precisely what RBG and Dershowitz warned us of.
This is what happens when prosecutors presume those they are going after are guilty and therefore have no compunction about bending the rules or the law to “get them”.
Unlike you I am not under the delusion that our law enforcement is all rainbows and sunshine. History demonstrates otherwise. And lots of that history is Muellers personally.
“If you were reasonable And open minded you’d be applauding Mueller for uncovering Flynn’s behavior while employed at the highest level of government, condemning him for ‘selling’ out the nation. But I’m sure you’ll disagree…”
What is it that I am not being reasonable about ?
You clearly have the time line F’d up which makes responding difficult.
But please list the specific activities that Flynn performed that constitute “selling out the nation, or that were wrong, or criminal ?
AGAIN – what are you trying to claim Flynn did that was illegal ?
The real question is why was the FBI “investigating”.
Obviously the FBI was monitoring Kislyak’s communications.
But there was nothing in the communication between Kislyak and Flynn that was improper.
There was nothing to “investigate”. The only crime that took place in all of that was that a transcript of the call was leaked to WaPo – that was a very very serious crime.
That had to have been someone in the FBI or DOJ. That transcript would have had extremely limited circulation. It most certainly would have been classified top secret, and anyone who touched it would have to sign for it. It should be pretty trivial to find who leaked it and prosecute them. My bet is Strzok, McCabe, or Comey. But that is a guess.
We know they all had access.
Here is DOJ’s guidlelines on “materiality” the 4th test of the jury instructions for 18 US 1001.
Though the text is long and tedious, One factor jumps out absolutely.
If there is no possibility that the investigator can be deceived – if they KNOW the answer to the quesiton at the time they ask it, then the misstatement can not be material
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-911-materiality
Just ot be clear – the elements of a crime are not suggestions.
Each and every one of them must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If any single element is not met – there is no crime.
In every single Mueller false statement prosecution Mueller new all the facts before asking the question. In those instances it is no possible to commit a crime.
Here is the 9th circuit Jury instruction regarding violations of 18 US 1001.
First – the statement must be false.
Given the loss of the contemporaneous 302’s and the contemporeanous assertions of Strzok, Comey and McCabe that Flynn was not lying and the fact that Comey closed the investigation. that is NOT an established fact.
The KNOWN Fact is that Flynn did not fully inform Pence.
Second – there must be a legitimate investigation – that is why lying to an agent about coffee will never be a crime. Essentially there must be an underlying crime being investigated.
Implied in that is that the person being questioned must KNOW there is an investigation.
If the FBI were investigating stolen Tea Bags – lying about drinking Tea or Coffee MIGHT be a crime. But not unless you knew that is why they were asking. If you do not know you are being interviewed as part of an investigation – then the lie is not a crime
Third Flynn must know that the statement is false AND that giving it is unlawful.
This is again why the FBI can not pretend this is not part of an investigation.
Flynn can not know the false statement is a crime, unless he knows that the interveiw is a criminal investigation.
Fourth this is a dead bang loser for Mueller. The false statement must be capable of misleading the investigation. The FBI had the transcript of the Kislyak call, they had absolutely no doubt about what was said. They could not be deceived. The only purpose of interviewing Flynn was to see if he would lie.
Put simply the 4th required element of the crime is NOT met and can not be met anytime the investigator knows before asking the question what the correct answer is.
I would note that EVER Mueller charge of lying to the FBI should fail because none of them can meet this required element.
http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/531
Many reasons why this “Campaign finance” super broad interpretation of the law necescarily runs afoul of the first amendment.
Social media is cow towing to totalian regimes – and not in the way you think.
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Terra-Incognita-How-totalitarian-regimes-will-take-over-social-media-and-destroy-the-West-574595
“NEW YORK – Today, Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood announced that – following a court decision in favor of the Attorney General – the Trump Foundation has signed a stipulation agreeing to dissolve under judicial supervision, with review and approval by the Attorney General of proposed recipient charities of the Foundation’s remaining assets.
This stipulation follows the court decision last month allowing Attorney General Underwood’s lawsuit against the Trump Foundation to move forward.”
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-underwood-announces-stipulation-dissolving-trump-foundation-under-judicial
And before we hear about the CF from the holier than thous and Trump APOLOGISTS around here, let me add I think many, many foundations are crooked (not a legal term), so, nail some more foundations NY, some are as bad as the TF, I guess, cough.
Unless I misunderstand what you are reporting this is a tremdous victory for Trump.
Trump has never needed the permission of the NY AG to “disolve”
This is a small family trust. The trump family can destroy it and recreate it close to at will.
Unless I completely misunderstand your story – the Trump Foundation has agreed to destroy itself in order to end the NY AG investigation.
So this entire line of inquiry dies.
And the Trump’s can form a new foundation or not as they desire in the future.
“The stipulation does not affect the rest of the litigation, which seeks $2.8 million in restitution from the Trump Foundation and to ban Trump and his children from serving on the board of a nonprofit for a number of years.
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2018/12/18/trump-foundation-agrees-to-dissolve-under-stipulation-with-ny-ag/?slreturn=20181118195644
The stipulation does whatever the text of the stipulation says – it is essentially a contract binding on both parties.
I have no idea about the web site you claimed as a source. But given that they can not even report the purported number of years that it bars the Trump’s from serving on a non-profit, it does not send like whoever wrote the article read the stipulation.
If Trump has he personal worth invested at about 5% interest which is a pretty low ROI, then he is making about 250K in interest per minute, That means that if he spends more than 15 minutes on this issue he is losing money compared to a 2.8M settlement.
If you do not understand this as a loss for the NY AG you are clueless.
There are myriads of foundations and trusts in the US nearly all are like the Trump foundation. They are privately held, they have few participants.
There are pretty much only two things they can do that could be “crooked”.
They can engage in tax fraud – which is extremely difficult as there is just no hiding money in a trust and most of the money in most private trusts is AFTER TAXES. Or they can defraud beneficiaries. Which is extremely rare, and no relevant in this instance.
The Trump foundation is legally identical to the trust that each of my parents setup during their lifetimes. Those trusts allowed them to transfer AFTER TAX funds between generations without running into the 3.5M federal cap on intergenerational transfers.
Sometimes private trusts also engage in charity – which aparently the TF did.
To commit tax fraud they would have to be hiding the income of the trust from taxes.
Not the principle that is in the trust, as that has already been taxed.
The Clinton Foundation is a Public Trust. That is not even close to the same thing.
It is essentially a form of non-profit business.
The only thing that TF and CF have in common is they both have “foundation” in their name.
Actual facts matter otherwise you can spin defeat to look like victory.
This is a defeat for the NY AG not a victory. And likely one the Trump had planned all along.
It reminds me of a fight I had with the IRS several decades ago.
The family business bought a mini computer in 1981. We used an accelerated depreciation method to determine how much we were able to write of as an expense each year.
By 1991 the system was fully depreciated and it was barely being used.
The IRS came in and claimed that it was still worth over 100K and that we should not have depreciated it so fast. To end the fight with the IRS we bought a brand new CAD system that ran the same software for $3,000, and sent the old one back to the company we originally bought it from for NOTHING.
The IRS went away. It was not possible to claim that something we litterally abandoned and turned over to someone else still had high value.
This is essentially what the Trump’s are doing.
They have told the NY AG – you want to fight ? Fine we can win this easily. We will just walk away. Then you have no one to fight with. And we can if we wish restart as the New Trump Foundation tomorow and there is nothing you can do.
dduck, my suspicions are Trump is going to be taken down by some obscure dealings that no one is looking at today, it will be uncovered by some investigator lokking at some dealings compketely off the radar and when uncovered, he most.likely will choose not to run in 2020. He will be charged for that crime based on actions well before making a run for the presidency.
That is why I did not vote for him, nor Clinton because she is as dirty as Trump. Johnson was too removed from shady practices to even be considered corrupt other than smoking pot.
Ron
Who knows what the future brings ?
I am not espeicially concerned about finding a real crime that Trump has committed.
If there were such a thing it would have been found long ago.
I am concerned about these manufactured crimes such as we are dealing with Flynn, Papadoulis, ….
Alan Derschowitz is crying that Flynn never should have plead guilty – there is just no crime there.
But there is no Alan Derschowitz to represent Flynn for free.
Mueller has proven over and over again that if he wants to accuse you of a crime, he will destroy you and bankrupt you – so you damn well better plead – whether you have done anything wrong or not.
Someone over at one of the more right leaning rags is saying – get this over with – Pardon everybody. Pardon yourself, pardon Clinton pardon her minions, Pardon Flynn, Pardon Comey, Pardon everyone – except Cohen. Cohen has earned himself a special circle of hell.
We are living through 1984 – we have newspeak, fake news, fake crimes.
While I am horribly disturbed at all these manufactured fake crimes.
Equally disturbing is that we have a justice department that was dispensing immunity right and left in the Clinton investigation – where there are a number of absolutely clear real crimes alleged.
And I would ask those who think that Flynn’s “crimes” are serious – what the F%^$ is it if as a result of your knowing efforts to hide records from the government the chinese are reading top secret code word document in real time ? Is that not a serious crime ?
Yet functioning as a go between Turkey and the US government is a “serious Crime” ?
So was Carter’s trip to North Korea a “serious Crime” ? What about Clintons ? Denis Rodmans ? John Kerry seems to think he is the shadow US ambassador to Iran – by the same standards how is that not a “serious crime”
The fact is NONE of these are – and neither is Flynn’s dealings with Turkey, nor are whoever it was that Mueller just targeted.
So we have an improper investigation of a non-crime, charging people with non-crimes, and browbeating them into pleading to non-crimes. We have yet to trip over any real crime more significant that tax evasion. Apparently Mueller things that the jury instructions – which define the elements of a crime are just a suggestion, and the DOJ guidelines – which he SWORE he would follow are not binging on him.
These things ARE our law. When you do not follow them you are LAWLESS.
What the H#$% is the left going to do if Trump gets an AG and FBI that applies the same standards the same way to those on the left ?
I forget who pointed it out, but some ethics group just labeled Warren and Harris as the most ethically challenged people in congress – why Because on a Senate email they sent out a camapign fundraiser spefically related to the Kavanaugh hearings while they were going on.
That violates a whole raft of congressional ethics rules, campaign finance laws, and several other laws.
The senate gets to decide its own ethics rules.
The campaign finance laws should be declared unconstitutional.
But if we are going to enforce those on the goose – then we must do so to the gander.
Anyway so long as we are looking at real violations of real laws – Trump has nothing to worry about.
Dave, what i was saying is those in positions where a lot of money is involved or government document preparation is involved, I suspect one could find something that was illegal if they dug deep enough. And with the TDS that is present today, there are many digging for crap that they might have a good chance of finding.
I worked in hospital finance for 35 years. Over that period of time I did multitudes of government reports “under penalty of law”. One report was done yearly for Medicare and it took almost 3 week to complete before computers. After computers, about 10 days for compiling information and entering data. I can guarantee you that if someone went back on those many reports over many years, they could find something that was incorrect.
Now for the those suffering from TDS. My concerns for what is happening in this country today is based on the above comments. Under normal circumstances before Trump, the Medicare auditors would come in, do an audit of the reporting, find some discrepancy, adjust the report for that discrepancy, revise monetary settlements with the hospital and move on unless some huge pattern of fraud was discovered. Under today’s legal environment, the auditors would ask for an “interview” to discuss finding of their audit. Then they would ask questions and answers would be given. Under my example, those under “interview” thought they were doing the reporting correctly and answered the “interviewers” questions as such. However, the “interviewer” already knew the answer was incorrect and as such, those under review would then be charged with lying to the feds while also be liable for medicare fraud.And due to the fact this was not an “investigation” no legal expert was present to provide consultation on how to answer questions legally and correctly.
Remember to crabs and pot of water. The water is getting warmer without most realizing that fact.
It is not necessary to look hard. There is a book by a civil rights attorney that asserts that the average american commits 3 felonies a day – we have so many laws and most are stupid, and the ridiculously expansive reading that many hear are advocating is increasingly common.
This article below references that as well as how the Government F#$@ over the CEO of Qwest for refusing to participate in their mass surveilance program.
As Voiltaire said “it is dangerous to be right when government is wrong. ”
You and certainly Jay and DD do not beleive that US Attorney F$%% People over,
You do not live in the real world, but then most do not.
It does nto matter whether it is FBI agents, US Attorney’s local police or local prosecutors.
Or even just building inspectors and other governmnet functionaries.
Either you kow tow to most of them – or you get F$%%’d
Some are much worse than others, but the problem is near universal.
I have “a crime a day” on my twitter feed. They tweet a new stupid federal criminal law every day.
The Howard Root story I tweeted is unusual in only one way – Root is not in jail.
Innocence is irrelevant.
Trump is likely safe – for one and only one reason. He actually has enough money to out spend a federal prosecutor. But that does nto mean they can not make it hell for him.
I would note there is another purpose of this attack on Trump.
If you were one of the best campaign managers in the country – would you go to work for Trump ? These people like to win, many of them could care about politics.
But they do care about being the target of a federal investigation.
This goes beyond just campaign managers. Flynn is a particularly important target – the message prosecuting him is “we are not just going to F#$% over the sleazy fringe politicos”
We bagged a 3 star general, Work for Trump – and we could come for you.
One of Trump’s big campaign promises is “draining the swamp”.
Guess what, the swamp is fighting back.
It is a mistake to think of the “deep state” as Republican or democratic.
They are out for themselves. Politically they are mostly like Comey and Mueller.
Ambiguous. But they are sure of their own morality and absolutely certain of everyone else’s criminality. They are “true beleivers” in themselves and their own righteousness.
Nothing is more dangerous than that kind of zealot with power.
The right sometimes uses them, and they definitely use the right to get more laws and more power. The left often uses them and they use the left.
We are seeing right in front of our faces the lawlessness of the “deep state” playing out, and so many are completely blinded by their Trump hatred that they either can’t see it or do not care.
Trump himself – I do not care all that much about. He is a very big boy and can take care of himself. I think the odds of getting him are near zero. Among other things multi billionaires just do not make the kind of mistakes that are truly criminal.
None of you seem to get that.
https://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day
“You and certainly Jay and DD do not beleive that US Attorney F$%% People over, ”
What? Explain where I think USA does right?
18 US 1001 applies not specifically to FBI and not specifically to “investigations”.
It applies to any encounter with any federal employee where they have jurisdiction to request information from you.
So yes, your medicare auditors could charge you with violating 18 US 1001.
I linked to the Howard Root video. God only knows how he survived being targeted for 5 years. He won big in front of a jury. He would have gotten no where without a jury.
Sarah said this, but will Trump deny it?:
“She said the administration has a “number of different funding sources we could use” to reach $5 billion, suggesting that the money could be found for border security in the spending bills still pending in Congress. But she also conceded that the administration could settle for the highest number offered by congressional Democrats — $1.6 billion — in a Homeland Security spending bill that already contains about $26 billion in all for border security.
That $1.6 billion offer from the Democrats expressly prohibits the additional border money to be used on a wall.”
Have you never been involved in any negotiation ?
Trump is pretty much one of the worlds experts at this.
There are myriads of techniques.
One common one is to negotiate through inferiors.
Trump can have Sanders say anything, and he can repudiate it. He is not bound by what she says.
I do not want to get into all the details of negotiations. beyond trying to presume that you know the significance of Sanders remarks is stupid.
I would also note that Trump is famous – long before becoming president for taking an incredibly extreme poosition an then compromising. But because he started so much farther than what he actually wanted he ends up getting everthing he wanted.
Basically he uses other peoples value of compromise to assure that he “wins” in a compromise.
What I know here is that this is a very high stakes game.
Trump really has only one clear objective – to come out of this looking good to all of those he promised a wall to. He can lose this fight and reach that objective. But he can not look like another whimpy politician. I would also note – Trump will win – no matter how much or little money is allocated to the wall if during the 2020 campaign he can go down to the border and be photographed along a couple of hundred miles of new border wall.
If he can do that – and he probably can find ways that congress can not stop – he wins.
He already used the army to put down 500miles of concertina wire. And that stopped the carvans – that is certainly what his campaign adds are going to say.
Democrats do not have any clear objectives. It does not even make sense why they would shut down the government over “the wall”. They can win this fight and still lose with the voters. There are already people playing video of Schumer and Pelosi from several years ago talking about the necescity of a wall.
Do you think Trump is not going to use that during the election ?
“Just over a week ago, on Friday December 7, the Special Counsel’s Office headed by Robert Mueller for the first time outlined in a court filing the grand narrative of the Russia Probe. The court filing revealed what many had long suspected, that Trump and his family had used, or tried to use, his presidential candidacy, and then his presidency, to enhance their own wealth.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/12/16/mueller-exposes-putins-hold-over-trump/#749d552648f6
Ha Ha Ha HA!
That’s Steve Forbes publication!
Dave, let me help start your response: “While I frequently admire and agree with Steve Forbes views, on this he’s full of (expletive deleted)”
The article is by Denning not forbes.
There is another article in Forbes recently assrting that the Mueller investigation is “full of shit”. Am I to presume Forbes endorses both views.
You can find on fox people who are sure Trump is a crook, and those who are sure he is a saint. Do I know what Rupert Murdock beleives based on that ?
As to the content of the article – Really ?
Putin’s hold over Trump is that Cohen was still talking to people in Moscow about a Trump Tower Moscow after 1/1/2016 ?
Oh My god the sky is falling!!!! Clear evidence of Collusion !!!!!!
Impeach Now !!!!!!
Honestly – if putin wanted real leverage over Trump – he should have assured that Trump Tower Moscow went through – don’t you think ?
Actually letting the thing get built would have made your purported lie even bigger.
The article seems to be claiming that Putin gained leverage over Trump by screwing him over Trump Tower Moscow – does that actually make sense to you ?
Trump got away with nasty remarks about McCain during the election.
He got away with fawning over Putin during the election,
He got away with pissing on a gold star father,
He got away with begging Putin to release Clinton’s missing emails.
Do you think that a story about the timing of the end of the failed Trump Tower Moscow deal would manage to even break into one news cycle in 2016 ?
Get a clue – saying NO! to Trump Tower Moscow is evidence that there was NO collusion.
Ha! Ha! isn’t this Micheal Bloomberg’s publication ?
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-18/michael-flynn-sentencing-washington-owes-him-an-apology
I have some issue with the article.
Aside from the actual problems with 18 US 1001, there is the separate problem that “lying” to the FBI is only a crime if it is part of an investigation.
As Bloomberg notes – the FBI went out of its way to lead Flynn to beleive this was NOT part of an investigation – because that would have required lawyers and other counsel etc.
Law enforcement is allowed to lie to people. But you can not tell someone that they are not being investigated, that they are not being interviewed and there is no reason for lawyers etc – essentially claiming this is little more than a casual conversation, and then assert that you lied to a federal agent in an investigation. If you do not know that you are being interviewed as part of an investigation then you can not have the intent necescary to commit the crime.
Just to be clear and to correct Judge Sulivan – lying to a federal agent is not a crime. If you are and FBI agent and you ask me what I am drinking and I say Coffee when what I am drinking is Tea – no one except a left wing not would think that is a crime.
If what you say is true and if it now appears this judge is going to throw the book at Flynn, Why would Flynn want to plead guilty? Why not take the chances with a trial and let the facts speak for themselves.
What the hell, this has probably almost bankrupted Flynn already, so why not go all the way.? If he loses, he won’t lose much given the judge he got and a long term no matter what. If he wins, he clears his name and he can sell the story to a publisher for enough to pay for all of his legal bills.
Then he can go on the speaking trail and warn people of the means the FBI uses to obtain information when an investigation is not an investigation.
While I thought the maximum Sentence that could be imposed was 5 years, aparently according to several sources the maximum Sulivan can impose is 6 months. And that would require Flynn to serve 3.
I think there is about ZERO chance Trump does not pardon Flynn.
Which means aside from losing 3 months of his life he has almost no risk taking the plea.
He can take the plea, serve 3 months and be appointed NSA in Trumps second term (which he could not do without a pardon).
I am not trying to say that will happen.
Frankly Oliver North managed to make a fortune over getting convicted for obstruction of Justice and North is not near as reputable as Flynn.
Mueller has ruined him for the moment. But Flynn is going to be worth a fortune on the speaking circuit after this is over if he does not turn on Trump.
And frankly he deserves it (North does not).
Why doesn’t Flynn back out of the plea ?
Because Mueller can manufacture a whole raft of charges with sentences far longer than 6 months. Because fighting this has already nearly bankrupted him. Because as I said in another post – there is no Alan Derschowitz taking his case pro bono.
Though I think Republicans need to learn about “gofundme”
Given that McCabe has a multimillion dollar legal defense fund.
Regardless as many people including derschowitz have noted – 90% of all people charged with a crime plead guilty. Most of those are guilty – but some of them are not.
NO ONE can afford to be a criminal defendant facing a zealous federal prosecutor.
Mueller hounder Richard Jewel for two years before discovering what everyone knew from the start – that it was Not Jewel.
Mueller hounded Steven Hatfill over the anthrax letters for over two years – before Hatfill eventually filed a lawsuit against DOJ and WON $2.8M, Mueller then targeted Bruce Ivers until eventually he committed suicide.
The National Science Foundation did a review and concluded the FBI analysis that he Anthrax came from fort dietrich was laughably flawed and it near certainly came from the mideast. Al Qeda had openly been trying to weaponize anthrax, Several people involved in 9/11 were exposed and treated for Anthrax, and according to Mueller the efforts of the 9/11 hijacked to rent a crop duster had nothing to do with Anthrax.
This is the guy running the investigation of Trump.
Nor are these the only bungled investigations he has been involved with.
Mueller has been an important figure in just about every high profile bungled DOJ/FBI investigation in the past 40 years – From the start of his career through Ruby ridge, Wacco, to the FBI lab disaster.
James Comey claims he and Mueller are not “buds” – that may be so – but Fitzgerald, Comey and Mueller show up together in supporting roles in most of the botched investigations of the past 30 years. Rosenstein joined the crew more recently.
Yup, just like the master apologist that he is he will parrot that meme. And, also it will warm him up to do the same with the WSJ.
Florida is NOT the rust belt – but it is an example of a state that by most every argument should be solid blue that has none the less not merely remained republican but very red – even if by the narrowest of margins.
Republicans have dominated Florida for more than 2 decades.
They have done so consistently.
They have done so even in 2016.
They had done so by the narrowest of margins.
But it is no fluke because they do so over and over and over.
Not mentioned was the fact that jews – another big voting block in FL are shifting red.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/democrats-struggle-florida-politics/
Baby its cold outside !
https://theweek.com/articles/813101/perils-great-awokening
Starting to get more substance about the Mueller Strzok-Page iPhone debacle.
And the additonal facts are DAMNING.
There is a prima fascia case of obstruction, and destruction of evidence.
1). the IG determined that Page and Strzok had text messages that were deeply concerning BEFORE Strzok and PAge left the SC.
2) the SC was specifically informed of this by the IG – and it resulted in Page and Strzok being removed from the SC investigation.
3). The Page/Strzok texts were subpeoned by the House Intelligence committee prior to Page and Strzok being dismissed.
4). The phones were wiped at the end of july – immediately after Page and Strzok left BECAUSE of earlier problematic texts.
So there is absolutely no doubt that Mueller was aware of:
the troubling texts,
the subpeonas
the IG subpeonas and requests
the DOJ/FBI record retention requirements,
The federal records preservation act
The SC office also admits to reviewing Strzok’s phone before scrubbing it.
So where is it in the law that the SC office gets to decide unilaterally what the IG and Congress are allowed to see of Strzok and Pages texts ? Or what is required by law and policy to be preserved ?
I MIGHT be possible to presume an innocent error – had the SC’s office not essentially fired Page and Strzok.
It MIGHT had they not reviewed Strzoks phone before wiping it.
It might had they not lost Pages phone for OVER A YEAR AFTER SCRUBBING IT.
There is a limit to the number of “innocent” errors you get to make before there is a pattern.
Aparently in Flynns case that number is ZERO. But in Mullers case it is dozens.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-doj-report-asks-in-anti-trump-text-probe-what-happened-to-strzok-page-iphones
Since I was looking up FEDERAL jury instructions I also looked up witness tampering.
There are several witness tampering statues – all but one require force or the threat of force.
There is no claim that Manafort used force or the threat of force against anyone.
There is also witness tampering by other threat. Manafort made no threat of any kind.
There is finally witness tampering by inducement – there is no offer of any kind by Manafort so that element is not present.
Seeking an indictment on a charge you know is not true is prosecutorial misconduct.
I would further note that all witness tampering charges require trying to get the witness to lie.
Manafort provided a link to an article in a magazine.
He did not make a statement about what was true.
He did not ask anyone to state something that was not true.
He did not even ask anyone to say anything at all.
Finally the person in question was not on anyones witness list.
To tamper with a witness you must know they are a witness.
What does it take before the lefties here quit making up the law as they go ?
What does it take before you quit tolerating prosecutors who make the law up ?
The Trump Economy:
New home sales tumble 5.5% in September. CNBC
Record imports drive US trade deficit to $55.5 billion in October, highest in a decade. AP
The Dow is down 7.8% and the S&P 500 is down 7.6% this month. That’s the worst December performance since the Great Depression. CNN-Business
U.S. Deficit Goes Berserk. JayObservation
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Misplaced comment… not Dersh related.
Jay, someone sneezes in China and Wall St. has pneumonia.
“The Trump Economy:
“New home sales tumble 5.5% in September. CNBC.” …………….What was the sales of homes for the past two years? What was the interest rates when those sales skyrocketed? Rising interest rates (to be addressed later) made people buy earlier than anticipated and now demand is slowing (also to be addressed later)
“Record imports drive US trade deficit to $55.5 billion in October, highest in a decade. AP”……….What the hell do we expect when we have increasing demand and most of our consumer products are crap coming from China and southeast Asia. What do we expect when other countries put 15% to 50% tariffs on our products to freeze us out of trade and we let theirs in duty free? What do we expect when we give GM huge tax breaks, they close plants in USA and import shit from China (Buick Envision)
“The Dow is down 7.8% and the S&P 500 is down 7.6% this month. That’s the worst December performance since the Great Depression. CNN-Business”……..Short term stock market is not a good indicator of the economy in many cases.
A good economy= increased demand = increasing prices = inflation pressure = increasing interest rates = computerized selling of interest sensitive stocks = decreasing stock values of Dow stocks= more volatility ion the market. And every market has a correction and will get oversold. If you don’t have an investment adviser, get one!
“U.S. Deficit Goes Berserk. JayObservation”
Now for home demand. In addition to the interest rate generated demand earlier and that impact, younger people can not afford homes today like they did just 15-20 years ago. Land values have skyrocketed, building codes have increased the cost of homes (ie the asinine solar requirement in CA) and increasing material costs have all priced small homes out of existence. Home builders are not building starter homes in any sizable number.
In my area, most all the homes now being built are on postage stamp sized lots are $300K or more. Someone making $50K-75K a year are hard pressed to buy that home. And loans are not being made like they were 15 years ago. You have to be able to afford to pay for a home today. And those with smaller homes are staying put because they were built when the homes around here had 1/4 acre lots or larger. Who wants a $400,000 home on a lot that you can hear your neighbors pee when the windows are open when you have a home on a lot with privacy?
Times change and not always for the good.
Ron, Trump kept taking credit for ‘his’ economy (when the numbers were good). He specifically mentioned rising stock market prices as proof of his economic genius, and also assured us his tax break policy would reduce the deficit. I’m simply pointing out that he’s a blabbering bullshit artist whose self congratulatory utterances are detrimental to a truthful national dialog.
Well ANYONE that thinks they know the stock market and what it does is full of BS or is a con artist. Trump is probably both.
The fed today said pointing to a labor market that it has “continued to strengthen” and economic activity is “rising at a strong rate.” One small increase in rates today and no more than 2 next year since rates have reached the neutral level! Inflation rates projected to be 1.9% and 2%. Ten year treasuries hit a low of 2.78%, lowest level since May.
WOO HOO. GOOD NEWS! Stock market is going up!!!
WRONG.!!!!
The Dow lost 767 points once the chairman opened his mouth. Was up over 300, then dropped to a low of 400+point loss.
So Brexit, some crap in China, maybe a camel farted in Egypt. Who know why the stock market does what it does. They just can’t stand good news.
But even with the turmoil in the market the past few weeks it is still up 18% since inauguration day 2017. So if the levels continue around the 23,000-24000 mark, that is a 9.5% gain for most investors retirement accounts per year on average.. I can live with that! Anything over 6-7% is an acceptable return.
I have for me a small fortune in the stock market.
I am betting that in the long run it will rise.
I am almost certainly right.
I can not tell you what it will do tomorow.
Yes, i should have qualified my comment with the long term outcome. I was addressing short term fluctuations.
And any president that comments on short term changes is nuts unless it is the same most financial advisers give. Forget about it unless you need money right away.
The economy does NOT respond to camel farts – atleast not in any consequential way.
The critical problem is NOT that we can not know the effect of most actions on the economy, it is there are litterally billions of actions each day that effect the economy, and the change from day to day is the NET effect of a near infinite sum.
We can know that reducing regulation will positively effect the market – including the stock market. What we can not know is whether 100 other factors will have a greater negative effect than the positive effect of reduced regulation.
Trump is MOSTLY reducing the negative impact of government.
That has no predictable day to day effect.
But it has a certain long term effect.
Even if as I fear but think is unlikely a recession is in the cards, all that deregulation will make the recession milder. The effect of the deregulation is close to knowable.
It is knowable that whatever occurs will be better than what would have occured.
I would further note that frequently acts have both long term and short term effects.
Often things that are long term greatly net positive are short term negative, and visa versa.
But government operate on the short term – another reason to get governmnt out of the economy. Government is inherently incentivized to make poor choices.
Anything over the inflation rate is acceptable.
But the higher a sustainable rate the better.
Government for the most part varieds the extent that it inflicts harm on the economy.
Government does almost nothing that makes the economy better.
Though undoing past harms by government does create improvement.
Trump – like Obama deserves most of the credit and the blame for the economy during his term
All politicians brag about the good – whether they had anything to do with it or not.
The stockmarket is not independent of the economy but it is not tied to the economy by cause and effect.
The stock market is volatile at the moment and mostly negatively volatile.
There are substantial elements of that that are Trump’s fault..
But the long term matters much more than the short term.
The stock market and the other things you noted – are negative economic indicators.
But on the whole economic indicators are rising not falling.
During Obama there were concurrently rising and failling indicators.
They are important, but the overall is the distincition between a good and bad economy
Do we really need to play this stupid game ?
Is it completely impossible for you to admit that the economy is complex and there are always measures that go down and others that go up, but that for the past 2 years we have been going up OVERALL – and at a rate greater than the sluggish growth under Obama ?
Consumer confidence is at the highest level in decades.
Wage growth at the bottom is 3.1%
Manufacturing jobs are WAY up.
We can trade points forever.
But there is pretty uniform agreement that we are doing significantly better than during Obama.
I know trump cares about Trade Deficits – But I do not. Any trade deficit must be matched by a capital account surplus. Foreign Trade is one of free things in economics that must be zero sum.
The Markets are still dramatically higher than 2016,
The long term Trend is still up and faster than during Obama.
Markets are more volatile – which is not inherently bad,
Some of the reasons for that is Trump is volatile,
Some are than there is a shift from profit taking to investing.
Some of that is because the global economy is weak.
The global economy should be a real concern, because the US economy might weather a global downturn and still do well, but it will do even better if the rest of the world does not tank.
The “Trump economy” is NOT as good as Trump and his minions hype it as.
But it is better thus far than the Obama economy.
And it is because of the differences between Trump and Obama.
I know that you want to beleive that command economies work – that the economy will respond to the dictates of government – but that is simply not true.
Trump is far from an economically perfect president.
But he is also better economically thus far than any president since Clinton.
Whether that is sustained remains to be seen.
dhlii- The difference between reasonable observers of fact, like Benjamin Wittes – who you disparaged in the past as a prejudiced Lefty – and one sided cement heads, is their willingness to criticize pro and con objectively:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/former-national-security-advisors-sentencing-hearing-flynncompetent-judging
Jay – facts are facts. People who see things that are not there are not reasonable observers.
Wittes has spent the past 24 months predicting the immediate doom of Trump.
That has not happened. It is no closer today than 24 months ago.
Ergo Wittes is NOT a reasonable observer of fact.
That said Wittes is quite reasonable for a lefty.
BTW I have never placed him on the extreme left.
He is at the left edge of moderate. But his biggest flaw is that his Trump loathing clouds his objectivity. That is an extremely common problem at the moment.
Prof. Tribe – who I greatly admire and though I disagree with on some things, is still the greatest constitutional scholar on the left – has completely wigged out since Trump’s election and is tweeting complete legal garbage.
Wittes who is not actually a lawyer, much less a legal scholar – though still suffering from the delusion that the end of trump is nigh daily, is overall producing better analysis than Tribe.
While Alan Dershowitz is demonstrating that he is a true civil libertarian.
Derschowitz is possible the best all arround lawyer since F. Lee Bailey.
While he is not quite the constitutional scholar that Tribe is – though he is proving much better currently, he has real in the trenches experience.
I would particularly pay attention to him on that – though he has by far the best constitutional law track record of the past two years. Unlike other scholars on the left,. Derschowitz has NOT changed his values or arguments because the occupant of the whitehouse changed.
Regardless, Derschowitz will not merely tell you that you are wrong on the law and the constitution. But that if you persist in that error the results will be disasterous for all of us.
If you sacrifice the rule of law to “get Trump” – you will lose the rule of law – likely for a long time, You may well not lose trump – because without the rule of law Trump’s legitimacy is just an oppinion. Finally if you do not allow the rule of law to protect the rights of those you hate, it will not protect those you love. Historically the failure of the rule of law results in the authoritarian tyranny that you fear – more often left than right tyranny, but tyranny regardless.
I do not know what happened with Sulivan yesterday.
Form months he has been increasingly telegraphing reasons to be unhappy with Mueller.
Mueller failed to produce what Sulivan demanded, and failed and failed, and finally much later than required, and pretty much at the very last minute so that there was little time for anyone to grasp its meaning dumped most of what was demanded on everyone.
That is nearly always a recipe for a prosecutor to get slapped down by the judge – and that is what lots of people expected. And Sulivan is the judge most likely to do so.
But Sulivan shows up and unloads on Flynn, and he does so in a fashion that clearly is disconnected from the facts.
And then he backs down and retracts much of what he said and delays sentencing.
I have no idea what that means. I do not think anyone else does either.
Maybe he had a really bad day, or a bad weekend. It could have nothing to do with anything.
Even judges are human. If Sulivan continues as he did – he will face serious problems.
But I do not expect that he will.
YOU fixated on a few things Sulivan asked/Flynn answered as having great significance.
They do – but not the significance you claim.
Mueller has refused to allow anyone to enter an alfred or Nolo Plea.
Every single plea deal of Mullers explicitly requires the defendant to admit guilt.
Mostly given what Mueller has charged his pleas are in every other way complete limp bisquits. i.e he charges people with being the antichrist and then pleads them to near nothing crimes with inconsequential sentences. As many practicing lawyers have noted – he also pleads them to “crim-in-falsi” charges – making them entirely useless as witnesses.
Mueller has filed more 18 us 1001 charges and accepted more please than all other prosecutors in US history. 18 us 1001 is a club prosecutors use – one they very rarely actually go through with. It is near certain an unconstitutional statue and even if not, one that the court is just NOT going to apply broadly. I have noted the jury instructions – those are called the elements of the crime. If you do not find ALL of them – you are not permitted to convict. The prosecutor must prove each one beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of the 4 required elements, it is unlikely that Mueller can prove more than one of them in every single instance he has charged 18 us 1001. I do not think there is a single instance where the requirement of materiality can be met. There is case law as to what that means, there are DOJ guidelines which I linked to that Mueller is required to follow that can not be met.
But worse still getting a defendant to plead to lying makes them a useless witness.
If he actually ever found evidence he might have made it unprosecutable.
He is not merely a bully he is a bad lawyer (including his entire crew which is supposed to be stellar).
All that said Flynn is himself engaged in a “game”, that is likely pissing off Sulivan.
It is a stupid game created by the idiocy of our laws – Not Flynn, and Muellers refusal to accept alfred or nolo pleas.
Flynn and his lawyers are actively seeking to get Sulivan to throw the who case out – WITHOUT WITHDRAWING THE PLEA. That is really really really rare.
Flynn is doing this because he can not take the risk of rejecting Muellers deal.
Mueller has made it crystal clear that he will DESTROY anyone who challenges him.
If Flynn withdraws his plea – Mueller will reign fire and brimstone on him.
Given that Mueller is essentially lawless and no one has shown any interest in reigning him in Flynn can not stand up to Mueller – that is why the guilty plea in the first place and that is why Flynn is NOT going to withdraw it. Nothing has changed since Flynn plead last year.
His risk is if anything far greater if he withdraws now. Mueller has a reputation that he has shown for being vengeful.
So Flynn’s deal which no matter how innocent I think he is or he thinks he is or anyone else thinks he is is not something he will walk away from.
I get that completely I would do the same in the same circumstance.
If Mueller were an actually honest lawyer – we would not be here now. There never would have been charges against Flynn.
A straight gulty plea – without a nolo or alfred provision REQUIRES that Flynn admit in court on the record each and every element of the crime he is pleading to – Whether they are true or not.
Much of what you quoted from exchanges between Sulivan and Flynn wre a standard “guilty plea colique”.
Sulivan says – you lied to the FBI Right ? Flynn MUST Say “Yes, Sir I lied”
You did so knowingly ? Yes, Sir Knowingly.
…..
If Flynn tries to hedge – even the slightest on any small item of any part of the elements of the crime – Sulivan will instantly say – Gen. Flynn is not actually pleading guilty and I can not accept the plea. And then he will schedul a trial – and not a trial of 18 us 1001 but of everything in Mueller indictment and everything he has treatened and everything new he can threaten.
I linked to the jury instructions for 18 us 1001.
Muchb of where you claim Flynn was proving what you beleive, was Flynn reciting each of the elements and confirming for the court that he violated them.
Flynn has only two choices – reject the deal – entirely or state that he has committed each and every element of the crime – whether true or not.
I find it hilarious that Mueller is forcing a person with integrity who did not lie to the FBI to lie to the court or he will be destroyed.
Sulivan is not stupid. He knows what is going on. Because though not quite in this epic way, this happens all the time. Prosecutors blackmail defendants in to pleading guilty to something they did not do, to end being pummeled in a match it is nearly impossible for them to win.
The easy solution would be for Mueller to offer a Nolo plea.
But that will not happen. The political implications would be too great for Mueller,
Conversely Flynn is trying to “shoot the moon”. He is trying to get Sulivan to do what he can not risk himself – to declare there is no violation and throw the whole mess out with prejudice so that Mueller can no continue to go after Flynn.
Sulivan can do that. Sulivan should do that. Sulivan is one of the most likely Judges to do that. And Flynn is betting heavily on all of the above.
But as much as Sulivan SHOULD do that, it has ALWAYS been highly unlikely that he would do that. It is virtually unheard of form a Judge to rebuke a US Attorney that strongly.
My Guess is that Sulivan is angry at Flynn for putting him in that position.
And that is what we saw yesterday.
But that is a guess, it is very difficult to make any sense of it
Are female Republicans smarter than males?
Kansas state senator Sen. Barbara Bollier, a registered Republican for more than 40 years, just switched her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat.
“Morally, the party is not going where my compass resides,” she said
Overland Park state Rep. Stephanie Clayton says she will today become a Democrat. That makes 3 Rs to jump ship in last two weeks.
Jay, this is good news. I also saw John Kasich listed in the 25-30 people list of Democrat candidates for president. If more Republicans switch to democrat, that might move the party back to more centrist positions on issues.
You might find me voting Democrat again!!!
My choice for a new Independent Party Presidential duo is Beto and Nikki
Jay, sorry, I would not be able to vote for that ticket. Nikki, yes, Beto absolutely no!
Beto supports:
Elimination of funds to charter schools. This severely impacts underprivileged children who have found a school that provides excellent education for less cost. We need more of these, not less.
He want to block any reciprocity agreements between states on concealed carry permits. We need more states allowing for concealed carry as long as the states that agree have the same minimum standards.
He supports banning some forms of guns. That is another example of the water getting hotter in the pot and we don’t know it.
He supports reentering the Paris Accords. Again I asked how the hell are we suppose to cut while that crap allows china to keep increasing until 2030 and not get back down to 2018 levels until 2050. That is a bull shit agreement!
He want to “empower the EPA”. I want the EPA to stop infringing on property owners rights. A field that gets wet in a rain storm and collects water at the end of the furrows is not a wetland!!!
He want to give the federal government more power over land use. They already control much of the west. And look what happens to forest when they do control it. It becomes a fire hazard!
And last, he supports increasing the coverage of the ACA and increasing subsidies. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Just increase the insurance companies another billion or two after they got the original windfall from Obamacare.
Sorry, too socialist for me. But probably a good bet for the next president.
God forbid anyone should ever look at the actual impact of democrats policies.
As I said Clinton and democrats lost for many reasons.
One is that Trump is the lessor evil.
Another is that we did not want another 4-8 years of economy malaise.
Another is that calling 51% of the country hateful hating haters does not get you elected.
But one reason is that voters are increasingly aware that the actual policies of democrats are horrible.
We may be afraid to kill PPACA now that we have it. But most of us grasp it was a bad idea.
We do not need any more such bad ideas.
BTW charter schools are not a panacea nor for everyone. They are not the solution. They are a solution for some children. And that is the problem with government control of anything.
We do not all drive ford focus’s. We should not all go to the same school.
:”We do not all drive ford focus’s.”
Obama tried with his gas mileage requirements that Trump killed.
And why do the largest majority of Americans drive SUV (mostly built on truck frames) and pick up trucks? because they were not covered by mileage standards, they were not downsized to meet those requirements like sedans that are too small for a family of four to go on a long vacation, did not have enough power to get up a steep mountain grade and looked like bathtubs turned upside down.
So America, even the greenee’s with families, rejected Obamas directive and bought vehicles that meet their needs not greenhouse gas needs.
By the way, our local TV station asked if you owned bump stops, would you be turning them in based on the new regulation. 95% reported no. Who really believes that the type of person that is anti government, mostly redneck, anti establishment and strict gun rights advocate that are the ones most likely to own that thing is going to turn in something like that? Even with huge fines!
Not going to happen. But then liberal gun control advocates can dream.
I think bump stocks are stupid. They have no real use beyond the guy in Los Vegas,
They radically reduce accuracy.
But it still does not matter.
You will never succeed in banning them. They are too easy to make yourself and will only get easier.
So I have to list all the democrats who have become republicans in the past decades ?
Kasich would probably never run as a Dem., but as a third party candidate, he could drain some votes from Trump & Co.
Yes, Trump is running (if that is the correct word) he country as one of his little corrupt Trump companies.
Go Barbara Underwood and Letitia James, you can save the world from this grifting slug.
Speaking of slugs, Another Trumpian bites the dust:
“Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke will step down by the end of this year, President Donald Trump announced Saturday, making him the latest Trump administration Cabinet official forced to resign amid scandal.
The resignation comes after reports that the Justice Department is considering whether to pursue a criminal investigation against the former Montana congressman and Navy SEAL, who is facing several probes into whether he has used his office for personal gain. His impending exit will make him the most recent in line of Trump administration officials to leave under a cloud of ethical scandals, including former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and former HHS Secretary Tom Price.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/15/zinke-interior-secretary-leave-trump-1066653
Apologies, Zinke has been covered somewhere above.
Another right-wing grifter: “Business records and evidence from social media raise questions about a cancer fundraiser touted during the summer by Jerome Corsi, the right-wing author ensnared in the Mueller probe.
Corsi helped raise $25,000 for an Alaskan man who he claimed needed surgery from an Israeli doctor named Eliat Mendelsohn. Corsi claimed Mendelsohn cured his own family member of cancer.
But business records show Corsi’s beneficiary, Thomas Sickler, registered as owner of Mendelsohn’s purported company. An Israeli hospital Corsi says is affiliated with Mendelsohn says it’s never heard of the doctor.”
https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/13/corsi-mueller-doctor-cancer/
Did the man have cancer ?
Did he receive Treatment ?
If the answer to those is both yes – then GO AWAY. There is no crime or fraud.
I do not care if the treatment was an indian sweat.
Unless you put up the 25K for cancer treatment – you have ZERO say in how that cancer is treated.
Absolutely I have moral questions about the way this money was spent.
Just as I have far larger moral questions about how the money to C Ford, McCabe, Avanatti was spent.
I think the GoFundme campaign of all the above a re moral cesspools.
But everything that I disapprove of should not be a crime.
I disapprove of prostitution – and I fully support legalizing it.
I disapprove of gambling and fully support legalizing it.
I disapprove of drugs and fully support legalizing.
Everything I disapprove of should not be illegal.
In the remote possibility that anything you are refering to is more than morally bothersome,
Only those who contributed have a claim.
You bitch about republicans legislating morality.
You are proving to be as morally smug and stupid as they.
What distinbguishes you from Fred Phelps aside from your personal view of what personal morality needs imposed on others by government by force ?
Trump deflection away from Mueller problems invites bipartisan scorn:
Sen. Reed, top Democrat on Senate Armed Services Cmte.:
“The hasty, disjointed manner in which this announcement was made demonstrates an Administration in disarray … This is a recipe for a quick return of ISIS, tribalism and warlordism, or worse.”
Republican Sen. Sasse: “The President’s generals have no idea where this weak decision came from … The losers are Israel, humanitarian victims, and U.S. intelligence gathering. A lot of American allies will be slaughtered if this retreat is implemented.”
Ex Republican Conservative Writer Max Boot: “Trump’s Syria pullout, made over the objections of his own administration, is a Xmas gift to Iran, Russia, ISIS, & Assad. This is the latest evidence that no Axis of Adults can save us from an impetuous and ignorant commander-in-chief.”
Republican Marco Rubio: “The decision to pull out of Syria was made despite overwhelming military advice against it. It is a major blunder. It it isn’t reversed it will haunt this administration & America for years to come.”
Republican Bob Corker: “It doesn’t feel to me there was any interagency process… I’m not sure even the principle agency heads knew… Trump just “woke up” and did it.
But the Russia and Turkey welcomed the news…
So the left is the party of endless war ?
I am not sure that defeating ISIS in the mideast was a legitimate US objective.
We can be friendly with Israel without being required to determine our foriegn policy – how much we will pay of our blood by israel’s interests.
If you are concerned about humanitarian issues – give to charity, go their yourself.
You may not steal from others to practice charity.
Robinhood did NOT take from the rich to give to the poor.
He took from the tax collected and returned to those taxed,
So not only do CIA, NSA, … need to monitor all our phone calls and emails, but we must also militarily occupy half the planet to provide for our security ?
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security – Franklin.
Max Boot Again ? Wow! Neocons oppose getting out of endless war !!! News at 11!!
The military continues to tell us to remain in afghanistan. For how many decades ?
“Republican Bob Corker: “It doesn’t feel to me there was any interagency process… I’m not sure even the principle agency heads knew… Trump just “woke up” and did it.”
Good, we need more of that. There is not wisdom in numbers – particularly numbers of bureacrats. Those “interagency” processes Corker is talking about – is swamp speak for Wha! you disempowered the swamp.
Now we need to leave Afghanistan too – Tomorow.
“But the Russia and Turkey welcomed the news”
So we should fight over which of us gets to allow our children to die in syria ?
Does Trump know what the f—- he is doing. The military and Senate Reps are distraught and our former partners against ISIS are preparing to be WIPED out by the Turks:
“But Pentagon officials who had sought to talk the president out of the decision as late as Wednesday morning argued that such a move would betray Kurdish allies who have fought alongside American troops in Syria and who could find themselves under attack in a military offensive now threatened by Turkey.”
Wag the dog?: “But one Defense Department official suggested that Mr. Trump also wants to divert attention away from the series of legal challenges confronting him over the recent days: the Russian investigation run by the special counsel as well as the sentencing of his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, in a hush-money scandal to buy the silence of two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump.”
Disgusting!!!!
We have been betraying allies for centuries, What is new ?
We have betrayed the kurds over and over. That was inevitable.
These people need to solve their own problems. We are not the policemen of the world.
It is not our right to decide how things should be in the mideast.
You seem to think it is OK for the US to abandon SA and let Yemen decend into worse chaos, but it is not OK for the US to get out of a mess we do not need to be in.
Wag the dog is about starting a war to divert attention.
If Trump wants to guarantee re-election he should start a war – a small one will do.
The US has NEVER changed the party controlling the executive during a war.
If Trump is diminishing our role in the mideast, he is making himself easier to defeat in 2020. You should be cheering.
If there is a defense department official saying as you claim – they should be fired immediately.
” the series of legal challenges confronting him over the recent days:
the Russian investigation run by the special counsel”
What russia investigation ? Russia is almost nowhere to be found in the SC investigation.
“as well as the sentencing of his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen,”
Trump appears happy to see the court throw the book at Cohen.
“in a hush-money scandal to buy the silence of two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump.”
Old news that you keep rehashing in the hopes it will be more meaningful.
Everyone else grasped it was a nothing long ago.
It must be avoid any competition day in South Carolina, and potentially other states too.
“(CNN)South Carolina Republicans could forgo their 2020 presidential primary in a show of support for President Donald Trump, the party chairman told CNN, a move that could frustrate efforts of possible GOP challengers.”
What’s Trump’s Quid Pro Quo in this?
Whether you like it or not Trump’s interests and the national interests are well aligned.
Trump does not really need another Trump tower, or golf course, or another Billion dollars.
He can not personally benefit from the wealth he has.
What he “needs” is to be successful as president as he defines success.
That is in the US interest.
As I posted on 12/17 Turkey is also angling for something with it’s efforts to extradite Gulen, and it’s threats to attack our allies the Kurds, possibly for us to come down hard on the Saudis. Meantime, Russia holds all the best cards, especially with the joker they seem to possess.
“As I posted on 12/17 Turkey is also angling for something with it’s efforts to extradite Gulen”
Ya think ? News at 11, both people and nations do things because they think they will somehow benefit!!!!
Oh, My!!! We can not have that.
Rather that fixate on what turkey wants and why, figure out what the law and constitution require of us.
Why are left wing nuts so fixated on thwarting what they beleive are the intentions of others ?
You think you can read minds and then you guess what you should do about what you think someone else thinks.
Is it any wonder you are confused and deluded.
Trying to live inside turkey’s head is not smart.
E.J. Dionne: The collapsing gun lobby”
“Voters who told exit pollsters that they cast ballots on the basis of gun policy voted for Democrats overwhelmingly, 70 percent to 29 percent. The exit poll (conducted by Edison Research and reported by CNN) offered other evidence of which side was most energized by the issue. For example, among voters in households without guns, Democrats in House races prevailed by 72 percent to 26 percent. Those in households with guns voted Republican, but by a narrower margin, 61 percent to 36 percent.”
https://newsok.com/article/5618025/ej-dionne-the-collapsing-gun-lobby
There are 350M guns in the US, There are 330M people.
72% of us have shot a gun.
59% of us have friends that own guns.
48% of us grew up arround guns.
41% of us live in a family with guns
and 30% of us personally own atleast one gun.
You can wax about this forever.
There are 100M people in the US that own guns PERSONALLY.
Clinton received 64M votes.
If you want republicans to have a permanent majority – piss off the gun owners.
You do not have the facts on your side. You are looking to do something far stupider than prohibition.
If merely 1% of gun owners resist whatever stupid laws you pass violently – that is 1M people.
Even it is only 1/10 of 1% – that is 100K people.
Are you prepared for the mess you will have if you make likely violent criminals out of 100K armed people ?
US Militia membership is way way down. Do you want to boost it again ?
Why are you unable to grasp how stupid this is ?
We already know absolutely – that gun laws do not work. There are myriads of proofs.
Kiwis and Ausies are nearly identical demographically
Aussies totally banned guns, Kiwis did not.
Absolutely no difference in the rates of violence between the two groups.
The aussies accomplished nothing beyond pissing off and infringing on the rights of their own people.
Banning guns int he UK did not reduce violance – so they moved to banning knives.
Whats next banning fists ?
Regardless, you continue to buy this nonsense that the majority of people or voters or democrats or left wing nuts or some majoriuty of some arbitrary group have the right to dictate how the rest may live.
Less than 1/3 of colonist supported independence – yet we won a war with Briton and are independent.
When one groups threatens the liberty of some minority – your fixation on democracy FAILS.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…” John Stuart Mill.
All Minus One.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/mill/
It’s good to know that wealthy people don’t really need their money or any more money. Any day now they will all start acting on that Noble ideal. Someone merely needs to alert them. Perhaps you can take on that task, you certainly seem to have lots of energy and a great desire to inform people on the subject of how they should behave.
Leaving the universe of the mega naive behind the question of why Trump’s actions so often align with making Putin’s day. Hannitty and Conway and Sanders will explain it all for the conservative pulic and then all will be well. Ha!
Dduck, it is not necessary to make good arguments in the land of the niave and communicationally incontinent. any old argument will serve the purpose. The purpose is not pursuasion. The purpose is simply having a retort and keeping the game going. On the positive side it keeps him out of mischief.
Thanks Roby. My mind wanders back to The Thriller in Manila.
You do not refute an argument by insulting it or it’s author
That is a sign of your own weakness
You do so with facts logic reason
What you you can.not refute is most probably true
Yes there is “fake news”, some anti-Trump: “Writer touted by CNN as ‘Journalist of the Year’ forced to resign for fabricating stories”
“What happened is beyond what I could have ever imagined: An article titled ‘Where they pray for Trump on Sundays,’ and endless pages of an insulting, if not hilarious, excuse for journalism,” wrote Michele Anderson and Jake Krohn who investigated Relotius’ Der Spiegel article about the town.
Both Anderson and Krohn went on to reveal that the article doesn’t contain any truth except for the town’s population, the average temperature, and names of the businesses or public figures.
Nearly everything else, including a coal plant employee named Neil Becker, who doesn’t actually exist, or quotes from a restaurant employee, who was falsely called the owner of a restaurant and whose son was given a fictional illness, was made up.”
https://www.foxnews.com/world/german-star-reporter-forced-to-resign-after-admitting-to-have-fabricated-multiple-stories
dduck, we have always had fake news. The difference now compared to the past is the internet and how widely little known reporters can make a name for themselves. The other difference is the number of stupid people that see fake news stories and circulate those to their other stupid friends that also belive it. In the past, these same stupid people would never have read articles like this and they would have had no way reasonable to share it.
Everyday I get stuff over the internet from friends who just send it on to friends without ever checking. Most of it after I fact chevk it is at best fake, and at worst, lies to influence thinking about people or issues. And it is widely spread.
Countries like Venezuela are in the boat they are in because stulid people believed lies. I truely believe we are headed in the same direction. Stupid people giving us Clinton and Trump, when other, much more qualified people in both parties was available. Obama was not qualified, but economic decision for the previous 10 years gave him that position.
When we lose the history of the Bill of Rights, we lose are future. Fake news speeds that up.
Yes when outlets like nyt cnn Wapo the Atlantic run litterally lies
Blame the internet
Sorry
When we substitute emotion for fact
When the narrative is more important than truth
We should not be surprised when.the truth is not valued
The internet is not the cause
The low standards of reporting in the most prestigious publications is
President Shit For Brains alienates to retirement through dangerous stupidity another military mind from his administration.
Read Mattis letter in full:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/read-james-mattis-letter-to-trump-resigning-as-defense-secretary.html
The chyron says it clearly for those of you who don’t get the meaning of the resignation
What is there to not get ?
Mattis says he is resigning because he thought he could push trumps foreign police to be more like that of Clinton
We did not elective Clinton
Further the things trump praises about Mattis are the proper job of the sec def
Those Mattis criticisms are not
You can agree with Mattis if you chose
Though I think that if you do you are pretending that the different view we elected
That of George Washington
Does not exist
David frum. And Steve Brannon had a long public debate on this
You can find it on YouTube
I like Fromm
I hate ban on
That does not change the fact that ban on
Destroyed frum
Something like 70% of the audience started agreeing with frum
When the debate was over 60% agreed with Bannon
Mattis sounds good in a vacuum
But his resignation is arguing for more of the foreign policy of the bushes
Of dick chenney
Of Hilary Clinton
And ultimately even Obama
Obama was elected much as trump arguing a much more washingtoniian policy
But Obama abandoned that as president and returned to the neo con policy in fact if not name
The generals tried to do the same with trump
Trump did what he promised in Syria
And like he promised he is leaving
All they neocon arguments that we should stay may.prove right
But they were rejected by voters in 2016
We have the most powerful military in the world by far
It is Mattis job to ensure that if we need to go to syria or anywhere else that we can
I believe that both he and a long line of sec defs can be credited with assuring that is so
But it is not their job to decide whether we go to Syria or anywhere and when we leave
Trump and the American people have repeatedly rejected precisely the high sounding argument Mattis is making
Unexplained in Mattis resignation is that he is arguing for using us soldiers
Our sons and daughters
As the police force for the world
The American people rejected that
The rejected McCain an chose obama
And still got the foreign and military policy the rejected
The rejected Clinton and chose trump
And one of trumps failures was that after being elected to get us out of foreign entanglements he was reluctantly persuaded to remai in them
Fortunately now he is rejecting them
Mattis is right to leave
That is not what we chose
Not merely trump but Americans are entitled to a sec def that is going to do what not just the president but 5he people chose
And now maybe we can get out of Afghanistan
An aspect of the 2916 election was whether we would continue the neo con view that Mattis
Argues for in his letter
What is the us role in the world
Are we the leader of a global police force ?
Trump rejected that view and was elected
President trump and the American people are entitled to a sec defense that reflects the values they chose with the election
Mattis should not have taken the job if he was not comfortable with what the people chose
Not merely as president but as policy
The place to make the argument Mattis is making is in an election
Those who elected trump might respect what Mattis has said
But they disagree and they voted for something else
They voted for a foreign police and military posture that was far more consistent with Washington
George Washington
One that was NOT about coalitions and American foreign entanglements with other nations
That was not about aliances and picking enemies and allies
One that was about staying out of the affairs of other nations
That was about putting america first in our choices
You need not agree
But that is what we chose in this election
Even though his “resignation” has been foretold for a while, I feel it is a killing blow to our Republic. King George III meet your successor.
Republican voters and therefore GOP politicians will experience slight misgivings for a few moments and then get over it. No big deal. Why does president very very large brain even really need advisors, he’s got everything under control. Dave will be here soon to tell us that all this is indeed wonderful news. Which of course is not as important as the upcoming list of conservative figures who will do likewise.
Roby
getting out of Afghanistan was the cleat choice of American voters
TWICE
It is one of few things I agreed with Obama about
American voters chose getting out of Syria
Trump is again doing what he promised
All the what if’s
May prove true
Mattis job was to assure that the military dispatched isis
And that after we left if we need to return again
For whatever reason we can
I think Mattis has actually done that well and that is why trump praised him
But Mattis is correct
We are leaving
Trump chose that
Voters chose that
Mattis can disagree but if he can not do what trump and voters ask I even if he thinks that is wrong
The honorable thing is to leave
This is what James comey should have done
This is what rod rosenstein should have doneThis is what Jeff sessions should have done
Only time will tell if Mattis is right
And probly we will never know
We do not get to know what the future would be if we picked the other choice
Neither trump nor Americans think terrorism is defeated
But isis is for now
And trump and Americans wanted them defeated and then wanted us to leave
All the neocon fears may prove true
It will not be rainbows and unicorns no matter what
I think it is time to leave
I do not think that is an end to terrorism or the problems of the Mid East
The honorable thing when you disagree and you can not persuade and the choice is not yours is to leave
Oh my god !
What tyranny!
Such an evil dictatorial authoritarian president
On who is defying the left
His purported betters
The elites
The neocons
The generals
And doing what the people chose and what he promised
How terible
Regarding this slow news day (!!)…I’m not sure how I feel about the Mattis resignation, other than to say that I think that Mattis behaved very honorably, by resigning when his policy views were at odds with the president’s, rather than leak all kinds of sensitive information, and continue to try and “manage” Trump, who is clearly not a manageable person (that’s not necessarily bad, by the way).
I wonder why so many people are freaking out over Syria. We have only had about 2000 troops over there, fighting in a war that Congress has never declared, that Obama got us into. Assad is a horrible, brutal dictator, but so was Saddam, so was Ghaddafi, and look what happened after we overthrew them ~ nothing good. If many of the war hawks in Congress that are now claiming that this will be a disaster, really believe that, why don’t they introduce a resolution to declare war on Syria, rather that let our 2000 guys hang out over there?
That was a rhetorical question. They will never do that, because Congress won’t do anything that they are supposed to do. I admire Senators Rubio and Graham, but why don’t they make a case for war, and let us know what victory would look like, and maybe do their jobs, rather than take pot shots at Trump, because he’s doing what he said he would do, by pulling us out of wars that don’t directly affect our national security?
Before you guys pile on…I don’t know if this is a good decision, or a bad one. But, it’s Congress’s role to wage war, and, like many other powers, they have given it up to presidents, so that they can sit back and criticize the presidents. Am I wrong in thinking this?
Ta da, perfect! Wonderful flexibility when needed to support the team is becoming the meaning of life to conservatives. History is going to have a field day. So are events. No, I am not going to have a nice little chat about this I will let the coming years do the talking
Saying “history is going to have a field day,” is sort of self-evident, no? History always has a field day with politics, especially the politics of war.
And, I’m pretty sure that I said that I don’t know how I feel about this decision of Trump’s. And, further, that I am, and have always been an admirer of Rubio’s and Graham’s, both of whom have made their disapproval clear. So, not sure why you think that I’m being flexible to “support the team.” (the Trump team, I presume)
No, in fact, this news story has made me realize how a reluctant decision maker like Obama was as brutally criticized as Trump when it came to Syria…and, of course, Iran. Like many others, I faulted him for his refusal to enforce his own red line in Syria, but, in his defense, he ended up tossing the decision to Congress, and they refused to declare war. So, in their own ways, both Obama and Trump have tried to figure out how to get our troops out of the Middle East quagmire, and been stymied by politics. Obama lost his chance ~ we’ll see if Trump can somehow do better. The odds in his favor are probably not good…
Hillary Clinton seems to be the one who was gung-ho to wage war on Libya, and convinced Obama to do so against his better instincts. It went very wrong, of course, and all of this business today makes me doubly happy that Hillary is not our president. But it also makes me think that maybe Obama would have been a better president, if he had followed his own instincts, instead of listening to her advice.
Anyway, you are right about one thing … we will really only be able to judge these things in retrospect.
The problem with Obama’s red line is that he should not have drawn one if he did not mean it
He was right not to act to punt to congress
He was wrong to draw the line in the first place if he was not going to enforce it
Both trump and Obama were elected to extricate us for foreign entanglements
Obama after getting elected sold out to neocons
Trump did for a time
Now he is returning to his promises
Afghanistan next!
Just to be clear
All the dire predictions of neocons will not come true
But some will
The world will not be all sunshine and angel farts because we leave Syria
Bad things will happen
Good government is not able to prevent all evil I. The world
But at least it does not make things worse
Tying to some of the rest of the news
Flynn opposed Obama’s intervention in Syria
He also opposed our use of water boarding and drones
He actively encouraged communications and engagement with everyone including enemies
He supported the coup against erodigan
And at the same time worked with erodigan after it was successful
Flynn was a stellar intelligence analyst
In everything from Grenada through Afghanistan
After being forced out of the military
The private work he got was in intelligence analysis
These garbage treason attacks against him the Sullivan stupidly repeated are because he followed his own advice and met with and talked to everyone
If your are going to provide advice to peolple about Russia turkey Syria ….
The. You need to meet with Russians Syrians, Turks etc
Good guys and based and learn what they have to say
One of the problems with the entire leftist attack on trump is that
The left and far too many here is this hypocritical guilt by association gargbage
I think trump made a political mistake in the way he dined Russian collusion
I think they lefts “Russian collusion” attack though false is still politically brilliant
Everyone remotely associated with trump is being excoriated for any association with anyone foreign
Particularly Russians
We have john Kerry meeting with the Iranian government quite literally looking to thwart us policy to Iran
And yet because Cohen emailed some rusian business men about
Trump tower Moscow which never happened
That is somehow proof of Russian collusion
Bill Hillary and their staffs and associates are tied in myriads of ways to every foreign government in existence
That is acceptable To the left
But if Flynn meets with Russians or Turks or …
In order to make a living getting the information he needs to continue to do what was his lifetime job intelligence analysis
He is somehow treasonous ?
All those of you on the left gunning for Flynn should be ashamed of your self
You are engaged in a stupid game of guilt by association
This is a vi,e and nasty and false political game
But unfortunately effective
If republicans do not engage with foreigners they are uninformed unqualified and xenophobic if they do they are treasonous
So let me make it clear
It is not morally wrong to meet with or talk to anyone in the world who will meet with and talk to you it is not morally wrong to want to do business anywhere in the world
It is not treason,
It is not morally wrong to get paid to do a job that does not involve force or fraud
Not even for people,e some think are bad guys
It is not morally wrong to get paid to persuade someone.
It is not wrong for someone to do that just because you disageee
That is quite litterally mcarthyism
Which was a very disreputable conduct of many on the right some time ago
Those who support communism are wrong.
But we are not free to silence or criminalie those whose views we disagree with
Even when we think those views are vile
Persuasion is free speech
Free speech is one of the core vs,use of the west particularly the us
When it dies true liberalism dies
When you criminals speach or otherwise attempt to constrain speach you do evil
No matter how lofty you think your goals
The claim that trump and his minions colluded with Russia is nonsense
But if trump had actually sat down with Putin and said if you do not show those non existent pee tapes and help me win the election I will look more favorably on Russia as president
That should not ever be a crime
Real conspiracy requires working together to commit a crime
Helping trump get elected might offend you
But it is not a crime
Helping clinton get elected is highly offensive
But it is not a crime
The role of government regarding elections is to
Count the votes
To assure that those who vote are living real citizens
Is Putin permitted to vote in us elections ?
To assure that people vote only once
To assure that ballots are not altered after votes are cast
To assure that those voting are not subject to force or threat of force
That is it
Just as you are free to persuade others
So am I
So is Putin
So is sorros
If you do not like the speach of others
You recourse is speach of your own
Even in elections
You dislike of an outcome does not make the means that may have achieved that outcome wrong
Prove force or fraud
Or go home and do better next time
Roby it should be crystal clear this is not a republican/dem left right … issue
Many republicans in congress oppose this
Many republicans oppose this
Neocons started as democrats
And now they are returning
But when they are honest
Or when this is about policy not trump
Most left and right support this
Priscilla:
What’s Trump’s real reason for removing those troops NOW, against the advice of Mathis and other military advisors, of his own security experts saying it’s a horrible idea, and against the opinion of congressional leaders from both parties with strong foreign policy experience?
There is no clear and present danger requiring their removal, no overriding national security problem for their presence elsewhere – and money to support 2,000 troops is insignificant in the overall military budget. If it doesn’t benefit the nation, who else benefits from it?
So ask yourself if it’s not in the US interest, or the Republican Party interest, and certainly not in his base’s interest – what’s in it for Trump? How does this benefit him personally?
Start by listing who else benefits from the troop removal, and what Trump quid-pro-quo benefit will accrue to him in some way. Who does it help, and how would that help him? I bet you can figure it out, if that is, you start seeing Trump for the self aggrandizing narcissistic clown that he is.
Do you read what you write ?
Us troops should stay in Syria
Until they are in danger ?
We must continue anything we start long after the objectives are met until it is actually dangerous to continue ?
There is always something to fear
Anything you do can be followed by something bad
Even. Preserving the status quo
Btw your experts have had a horrible track record
Will it be time to leave Syria when we have been there 20 years ?
Why is it in the us interests to stay ?
Why is in gop interests to stay .
Why is it in the public interests to stay ?
Your fear
And neocon desires to make the us the policemen of the world are not good enough
This was decided by voters in two elections
Who benefits from troop removal ?
The officers that do not have to write letters home explaining why some mothers son or daughter died or was maimed
There are times Americans must pay in blood for our nations interests
Those times are rare and this is not one of those
I thought Obama was naive when he said he would bring troops home from Afghanistan in 90 days
But he was right about bringing them home
The right time to bring them home was when the taliban had fled or been destroyed
It should be obvious at this point we can defeat enemies quickly
What we fail at is the after
Defeat them
Come home
We Dan go back
Again and again as needed
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/20/sen_mike_lee_on_syria_withdrawal_by_definition_this_is_the_opposite_of_an_obama-like_decision.html
Priscilla , you will find those that have no understanding of the constitution running their mouth about any actions we take around the world totally political. As you know, but others do not, the following is a description of powers granted in the constitution.
“War Powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.”
I dont give a rats ass what powers congress has delegatec to the president to wage war. You CAN NOT delegate responsibility.You can only delegate authority, but the responsibility still rest with congress. If Rubio and Graham, along with all the other upset congressional leaders, want troops to stay in Syria, the answer is simple.
All they need to do is exercise their responsibility as provided by . Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the constitution. Then Trump would have to follow his responsibility provided by Article I I, Section II in directing the actions by the military in that war.
WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO STUDY AND UNDERSTANDBTHE CONSTITUTION??!!!!
Amen!
If you think trump is wrong
Legitimate means exist to stop him
But they require voting and being held accountable for those votes
This is also why the judiciary should quit meddling in policy
Sullivan was one of the judges thwarting sessions narrowing the grounds for asylum
Sullivan is wrong
There is law on asylum
It does not include domestic abuse or gang violence
It requires the persecution you flea to be government persecution
Obama expanded that
Obama was wrong
Sessions returned standards to conform with the actual law
The courts are making policy preference choices not following the law
If the law is unclear
It is the courts role to read in narrowly or throw out the law as unconstitutionally vague
There is nor expand to suit political preferences choice in the constitution
On of the problems with Obama’s actions an the now lawless courts thwarting trump is that the are taking a power that belongs to congress not the courts
The courts are to decide what the law or constitution say based on the plain words
Not political preferences
We resolve political preference questions in congress
If we want to keep illegal immigrants in the us for any of myriads of reasons
Congress can act
If we want to stay in stpyria
Congress can act
On most every conflict with trump
Trump is interpreting the powers of the president narrowly
He is reverting to doing what the laws says
Not what Obama decided he wanted it to say
In some instances trump actually supports Dacca or some of these other things
But the law does not allow them
So change the law
The left wants to have its way if it can get one of congress the courts or the president to agree
Our constitution requires all to agree to do something
Amen!
I would further note we may never know whether leaving Syria is a good choice
The debate reflected by the election was not that we should defeat isis leave and after that everything will be rainbows and unicorns
Terrorism will not end
The alternative to neocon foreign policy is not complete disengagement
Nor a belief we will never have to act
Or even act again
It is that we decide when to use our military
We decide what the objective is
We act on that
We achieve the objective and we leave
We leave Syria as trump promised and the people want
And we leave Afghanistan
We can come back if we need to
When we choose to stay
When we pretend we can do more with our military than kill the enemy
When we decide that our soldiers are a tool of diplomacy in a way beyond as a threat to destroy those we identify as the enemy
Things have gone badly
Somewhere jullian assange and Vlad putin are smiling. GOP voters have become very comfortable with that.
Eh, Roby, that’s BS and you know it.
Julian Assange does not decide us foreign policy
Nor does Putin
But only an idiot thinks that anything assange or Putin support
Or that benefits eithe
The us must oppose
A major error in Mattis resignation letter is framing China and Russia as enemies
Our foreign policy and military policy is not about thwarting Russia and China
It is about. What is best for the us
Sometimes things that are good for the us are also what Russia and China want
Our foreign policy is about the US about our interests
Not sboutnthwarting those of others
No, not BS. Every autocrat is smiling and licking their chops.
It is irrelevant what Putin and assange want
If your foreign policy is driven by opposing what Putin and assange want
They own you
I don’t think that every one is, duck. For example, without having to spend blood and treasure in the ME, we’ll have a lot more time to keep an eye on China, which has stayed out of the ME mess, and been taking over the South Pacific. So, Xi might not be smiling…
I’m uneasy about the idea that ISIS may reconstitute itself, but I don’t know that we can eliminate Islamist terror groups across the planet. We’ve never gone into Nigeria to eradicate Boko Haram, for example.
And, we have tens of thousands more troops in Germany than we ever had in Syria. For what? To protect Germany from Russia, while Merkel signs deals with Putin? I guess that makes an autocrat like Putin smile and lick their chops, but it ain’t because Trump has decided to pull out of Syria.
Our military is good at killing the enemy.
It is horrible at playing policemen.
If ISIS comes back – so can we.
Trump middle-fingering our allies while sucking and ass kissing Russia & Turkey.
So says the ultra conservative press
Trump flushes America’s promise to the Syrian Kurds.
https://twitter.com/noahcrothman/status/1075950769688494080?s=21
The Kurds fought sadam
They did so because it was in their interests
We decide not betray them
The Kurds fought isis
Because it is in their interests
We did not betray them
A shared interest is normal an eternal bond
The Mideast is messy
It will remain so until these people’s sort that out themselves
There will be Islamic terrorists until Muslims oppose terrorism
There will be conflict in the Mideast until these people work things out on their own
If you honestly beleive the Kurds deserve our support
Send guns
Not soldiers
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/the-trump-doctrine-and-2020.php
So “the deal” as you say was to use US soldiers as hostages ?
Turkey has a huge Kurdish population
The Kurds were deliberately split accross Iran Iraq an turkey post WWI
To disempower them
The real threat is that the Kurds will unify
They are sitting on massive amounts of oil
More Russian spying: “Russian Agents Sought Secret US Treasury Records On Clinton Backers During 2016 Campaign”
Whistleblowers said the Americans were exchanging messages with unsecure Gmail accounts set up by their Russian counterparts as the US election heated up.
The Treasury Department refused to tell BuzzFeed News why its officials were communicating with unofficial Gmail accounts at the same time that Russia was sending the suspicious requests, or to say whether it eventually turned over any documents in response. Nor would officials answer any other specific questions about the matter.
In a statement, a spokesperson said: “Treasury does not discuss or comment on confidential communications with foreign governments, including to confirm whether or not they have occurred. We have notified our Office of the Inspector General of these allegations.”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/anthonycormier/russian-agents-sought-us-treasury-records-on-clinton-backers
Shorter version of reply soon to be 10,000 words of drivel.:
They all do it and have always done it and will always do it. They are free to pursue their agenda and if we don’t like it we can seek legal and legislative remedies, bull, bull, twist and turn, etc. And I don’t believe the author or anything he or his rag says, the government should stay out of things, which they always screw up anyway; it is all fake news.
So the irs under Obama f#$&s up surprise!
And you blame trump ?
You provide ever more evidence of why it is a crime to behave recklessly with confidential government records and you still paint Clinton as the victim ?
Charge all government employee sending confidential information using non government email
Fire anyone using non government email for government business
Problem solved
Less than 100 words
You summarized what you thought mt response would be
But you did not refute any
Can I presume you agree ?
Tom Nichols:
“Today is the day that Never Trumpers warned was coming. Markets crashing, indictments piling up, a President losing his grip; allies horrified, enemies celebrating, government in chaos, and Mattis quitting in protest.
And it’s going to get worse.”
Two years in the three generals the neocons counted on to contiue the neocon bullshit the country has rejected in multiple elections have resigned
Trump was right he and the American people know better than this endless war bullshit
The one general opposed to this bunk was framed and is now being forced to plead guilty to being setup or be destroyed
The sky is not falling
Never Trumpers warned us that they would hysterically rant about trump
and they were right
“The Sky is not falling,”
But Israel’s skies will need even more monitoring…
“But Israel’s skies will need even more monitoring…”
That would be israels job and will not require a single US troop.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/19/trump-syria-troops-wthdrawal-authorizati?utm_medium=email
“On most every conflict with trump
Trump is interpreting the powers of the president narrowly”
This is actually true. Over decades, Americans have come to believe that the President is responsible for everything that happens on his watch, and, although he may have political accountability for most of it, there is a friggin’ CONSTITUTION, that determines whose actual responsibility it is. And, when it comes to war, the President is Commander-in-Chief, but he is NOT empowered to declare war. That’s delegated to Congress.
Why do you think it was that George W. Bush had Colin Powell make the case for war in Iraq?? W. understood that he could not undertake a massive invasion of Iraq, without first making the case for war and having Congress pass a resolution declaring war. Why do you think that Obama was able to say that he always opposed that declaration? Because he wasn’t in Congress when it happened, that’s why. When it was time for Obama to deal with the war that Bush had never ended, he was unable to negotiate a SOFA with Iraq, so he pulled our troops out without a plan to stabilize the very unstable new Iraqi government, and lost the victory that had been achieved. Meanwhile, he and his SecState, Hillary Clinton, got us further involved militarily in the ME, by attacking Libya and overthrowing Ghaddafy, leaving yet another huge mess. That was an ILLEGAL war, waged by Obama, without a Congressional declaration (but Hillary was able to chuckle and say “We came, we saw, he died,” and imply that we had won a great victory).
So, now , Trump is the duly elected president, who gets to deal with the seemingly impossible problem of the ME. He’s apparently been listening to Mattis for 2 years, and doing what the general said. But, he ran on the platform of no longer having the US be the policeman of the world, and on making our so-called allies take up some of the burden of keeping the peace. I think that Mattis believes we SHOULD be the policeman of the world. Pax Americana. Until recently, I agreed with that thinking….now, I’m not so sure.
Syria is a civil war, and a proxy war for Iran. Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham can wale all they want about how necessary it is for America to be there, but, if they mean it, they need to get Congress to declare war. I’ll take bets on the odds of Congress doing that.
“On most every conflict with trump
Trump is interpreting the powers of the president narrowly”
Nonsense! You have to have your head up your Trump-enabling butt to be unaware of the NUMEROUS reports of Trump attempts to engage in unconstitutional and/or egregiously unethically stupid or strategically inept behavior but being restrained by advisors, now all but gone: National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, outgoing Chief of Staff John Kelly, now Mattis, Tillerson who reported Trump had regularly pushed him to take actions that were illegal, Sessions who told Trump to stop trying to improperly influence the DOJ, etc etc etc.
No wind-up talking-doll Trump rationalizations will alter Trump’s dangerous ineptude, or the faux populist puffery you’ve come to embrace.
Ah, Jay, after your last reply to me, I was going to compliment you on the moderate and civil tone to me. Fortunately, I decided to wait and see if it lasted….
Anyway. a question: Could you give one example of anything that Trump has done that is actually UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Something that violates the actual US CONSTITUTION, and not just your delicate sensibilities? Something like forcing private citizens to purchase something like, say, health insurance, or maybe making up a law that Congress never passed…you know, something like DACA? Maybe signing a treaty without Congressional ratification – sort of like the Paris Climate Accord or the Iranian nuclear treaty?
Something like that, you know? An actual EXAMPLE? Because pissing people off, disagreeing with unelected generals and bureaucrats, even firing them, is not unconstitutional.
Try using some actual facts once in a while. I know you can do it!
I’m civil when it’s deserved; I’m forthright when responding to dangerous idiocy.
Saying that there are “numerous reports” of Trump “attempting” to do something unconstitutional is not the same as him actually doing it, you know. I’m more than willing to believe that he is not well-versed in the Article 2 powers, but if he has heeded the good advice of those who’ve stopped him from taking unconstitutional action, then that’s a good thing, right?
I daresay that most Americans are weary of war, and don’t understand why we are even in Syria, at this point. If our ME allies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are willing to take our place and militarily support the Kurdish forces that we have been assisting (which they apparently are), isn’t that a better situation than our staying in Syria, and losing more American lives in a foreign war?
I have to believe that, if Trump were a Democrat president, and took this action, he would be praised for it.
I’ve said all along, I’m not sure that this is the right decision, but, if America wants to stop spending billions on foreign wars and being the world’s policeman, it’s probably a good starting place…
Priscilla, I caught part of Washington Week on PBS while channel surfing tonight. They were discussing actions taken by Trump. The comment was made that he is losing the right based on his Syria policy…. “but they should not be surprised since this was his promise to get us out of the ME when he ran. In addition, he promised changes in China trade which is also adverse to GOP policies on trade”
They also retorically asked “if this is the new Republican Party?”
I think if the GOP had a viable candidate and could figure out how to put a road block in his 2020 nomination, they would in a heartbeat. Trump is anything but a Republican!!!
Ron, I agree that Trump is not a typical Republican, but I’m not sure that there are any viable candidates that could successfully primary him. Ben Sasse from Nebraska is someone that has been mentioned, as is the “new” Senator from Utah, Mitt Romney.
But, if you recall, Romney made a well-covered speech during the 2016 primaries, ripping Trump, calling him a con man and a fraud, among other things. And , it had little to no effect…Trump went on to steamroll over Rubio, Cruz, and other very seasoned conservative candidates. I think that the Republican Party had become too elitist and too willing to allow Democrats to win by using the same old slurs against GOP candidates: they’re stupid, racist, misogynist, homophobic, want to take away your healthcare, want to fight endless wars for oil,
I remember being so disappointed when Romney lost, and feeling like he just allowed Obama to smear him with the whole phony “war on women” thing, and the fact that Romney had been a venture capitalist, as if “capitalist” were a dirty word. Romney never seemed to fight back. Although I supported Rubio in the primaries, I was amazed at how people loved it when Trump actually said things that other candidates were afraid to say. And kept winning, even after most of the others dropped out.
So, I think that the GOP is stuck with Trump for the time being. If they reject him, his base goes 3rd party populist-libertarian with him, and they lose. Maybe that’s what will hapen…
Romney lost because he ran as “Obama lite”.
Mostly I think Romney is a decent person. And I respect his family and his successes.
That does not mean I agree with him.
We can all have our oppinions about how Trump defeated other republicans.
I have my theories, but I do not understand it.
But what I do accept is that it happened. And it did not happen by accident.
The electorate may not have elected my choice, but they were not duped or deceived
Trump pretty much is “what you see is what you get”
We constantly get these “buyers remorse” news stories – but despite a press that is 3 times more hostile to Trump than any other president ever, Trumps support is polling the same as election day 2020.
We are going to be reading the tea leaves of the 2018 election for a long time.
Voters clearly were “sending a message”. But it was a messy mixed message.
Republicans did badly in the house. But they did much better than expected in the senate.
And they very nearly did incredibly in the senate. If Sienma had lost – a razor thin election that would have been disaster for Senate Dems. And though other races were not nearly as close – they were much closer than they should have been.
Further all or nearly all the candidates Trump campaigned for WON.
So are republicans unpopular ? Or is Trump ?
Or do voters actually want Trump as President AND want democrats to control the house ?
I do not have the answer.
Though I do think there are conclusions to be drawn.
I am glad McCaskill is gone. But her post election analysis is correct.
The ownership of the democratic party by the extreme left makes it impossible for moderate democrats to survive – atleast in state and national races.
The democratic house victory was but moderate democrats.
But the house leadership in 2019 will continue to reflect the values and priorities of the extremists.
Absolutely Trump lost NeoCons most of them before the election. Most never Trumpers are neocons.
One forgets that NeoCons are essentially war mongers who left the democratic party for the republican party. If they are leaving – good riddance.
Conversely Trump has attracted a large body of blue collar working class voters who WERE democrats. That is a group that has voted democratic for a century. It used to be the core of the democratic party. Today these voters are ‘the deplorables” and they voted for Trump.
Overall Trump did more poorly than Romney in deep red states – though not so poorly as to lose. But he did far better in the rust belt.
And that is the constituancy Trump can not afford to lose – not neocons.
I am neither a democrat nor a republican.
I do not support Trump’s policies that appeal to blue collar democrats.
But if I have to chose between a neocon and Trump – I am chosing Trump.
Outside of Graham Every single Republican in 2016 made the same promises Trump did.
Getting us out of endless wars. Nearly all – like Trump demanded that we build and even stronger defense – incase we needed it. But every single one was skeptical about using it.
Republican candidates fought over syria – about HOW to get out.
They fought about HOW to get out of afghanistan.
They all wanted out.
Regardless the last thing we need as president – regardless of the party is another neocon.
The Bushes were tepid NeoCons. Chenney was a ferverent one.
Hillary Clinton sought to out neocon chenney, Obama ran as a non-interventionist and proved to be the most interventionist president since FDR.
If the price to get rid of Trump – it so get another neocon.
That price is WAY TO HIGH!!!!!
No one should want that – neither republicans nor democrats.
A non-specific unsourced claim is no claim at all.
Even if Trump managed to successfully secretly violate the constitutuion, it would be all of 2 days before Jay would be telly us.
If there is something Trump has done that is unconstitutional – then whoever is making that claim must spell out exactly how – using the actual plain language of the constitution.
The point that Ron and I( both make is that the rule of law requires that the meaning of the constitution and law is NOT merely a matter of oppinion.
But that is where the left has taken us. We can have differences of oppinion on what color to paint a bird house, or what car is better, or myriads of other things were we are free to make our own choices.
You may not impose something that is nothing more than an oppinion on others by force.
That is clearly immoral. It is also clearly lawless. It is just a different form of might makes right.
150,000 years of human existance have brought us to the understanding that force – whether that of individuals or collectively MUST BE JUSTIFIED.
That we denegerate to anarchy or totalitarianism otherwise. That we are worse off otherwise.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Goldwater actually got it wrong.
Reagan’s the maximum of individual liberty consistent with public order makes it clear that
Liberty is a curve. That zero freedom and infinite freedom are THE EXTREMES.
It is the use of FORCE that determines the maximum of the curve. The excercise of freedom that does not involve the use of force against others is clearly on one side of that maximum.
And should never be constrained.
The use of force in a way that increases the actual freedom of all, and does not infringe on any other freedom EXCEPT that of using force, brings us closer to that maxima.
But all uses of force that infringe on any freedom that does not involve force bring us towards the other extreme – totalitarianism.
It’s not his actions alone. It’s the dangerously stupid way Trump went about enabling it.
Wake up. The criticisms are coming from Republicans formerly pro Trump in the past, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, and from Conservatives as solidly far right and pro Trump as Victor Hanson, Paul Watson, Richard Spencer.
Trump is an incompetent fool. Keep defending him, and make yourself complicit in the deteriorations ahead.
Would that be This victor Hanson ?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/19/victor_davis_hanson_the_elites_havent_faced_consequences_comey_clapper_brennan_rice_all_lied.html
It would be this hanson on the topic under discussion, nitwit.
I agree with what Hanson actually wrote.
But Mattis chose to resign.
I have not heard that he was forced out.
I do not hear Hanson saying that Trump is wrong to leave Syria now.
But even if he does – So I can disagree with VDH one this issue and still agree with him on many others.
If you think VDH is a “neverTrumper” you would be greatly mistaken.
I suspect like many of us, we would prefer that Trump was less offensive.
But grasp that he is far batter than the alternatives.
chrome-extension://klbibkeccnjlkjkiokjodocebajanakg/suspended.html#ttl=Victor%20Davis%20Hanson%20%3A%20The%20Complete%20Corruption%20of%20the%20Obama%20Administration%20helped%20Sabotage%20Hillary%20-%20YouTube&uri=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amHj3F42Q9U
chrome-extension://klbibkeccnjlkjkiokjodocebajanakg/suspended.html#ttl=Victor%20Davis%20Hanson%3A%20The%20Elites%20Haven’t%20Faced%20Consequences%3B%20Brennan%2C%20Comey%2C%20Clapper%2C%20Rice%20All%20Lied%20%7C%20Video%20%7C%20RealClearPolitics&uri=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/19/victor_davis_hanson_the_elites_havent_faced_consequences_comey_clapper_brennan_rice_all_lied.html
Not a big Lindsey Graham Fan.
But this sure does nto sound like somebody ready to dump Trump/
“Number one, when you make a promise to the American people, you should keep it,” Graham responded. “The one thing I like about President Trump, he is trying his best to keep his promise. He promised to build a wall, and he is going to fight hard to keep that promise. After the caravan, if you don’t see the need for more border security, you are blind. Here’s the problem. I think Democrats hate Trump so much they want him to lose, even though it would be good for the country to work with him on border security. And if he doesn’t break ’em now, it’s going to be a terrible 2019. So Mr. President, dig in.”
“If they are not willing to work with the president, I think they are going to hear it from the American people in 2020,”
“I don’t think I am thought of up here is some radical guy, but if you don’t see the need for more border security, then you are just not paying attention. The president of the United States is right to want more money to secure our borders, to build the wall as part of border security. Democrats are wrong to act like children, to say you can’t get a penny more.”
Stating that he’s glad the president “picked this fight,” Graham predicted that Trump would eventually win.
“He just needs to make the case that the border needs to be better secured, the money I’m asking for can be well spent. And here is what I find odd, Democrats will spend money on almost anything except a wall that we need.”
“I will tell you how it ends,” said Graham. “President Trump is going to get more money for the border.”
“It’s not his actions alone. It’s the dangerously stupid way Trump went about enabling it.”
Nope, in the end it is your actions alone.
Your actions are the only things that are facts.
You have bought into this leftist nonsense about feelings and intentions.
These are things that you can not ever know for certain.
Yet, you claim to know Trumps with absolutely certainty, and then evaluate solely based on your oppinion of his feelings and intentions.
ACTS, that is it.
Trump annoys me. I would never chose him as a friend. I do not want to be arround him. The way he speaks puts me off. I can go on and on.
He is not alone in annoying me. Hillary annoys me too. Most politicians annoy me.
Those are reasons for not chosing these people as friends.
They might even be reasons to not vote for them.
But of all the things about Trump that make him unfit to be my friend, business partner, someone I want to be arround, or someone I would vote for – none of them constitutionally disqualify him for public office.
He is quite clearly not a criminal. He has been investigagted, sued, all his life and the past two years he has been put under the microscope by Robert Mueller and his crew as well as the New York AG. All of whom using massively broad interpretations of the law – still can not find a crime – though they like most of the left are absolutely certain that they will find one under the next rock.
The most they can find is that he has cheated on his wife.
That cheating was pretty tame – particularly in light of the ludicrously stupid allegations in the Steele Dossier.
Who honestly beleives the person with the pretty vanila sexual apetites that Stormy Daniels describes hired a bevy of Russian prostitues to pee on the bed obama slept in ?
Who honestly beleives that if Trump was into even consensual perversions that we would not know about it ?
Trump did not sexually harrass anyone. Despite the NBC tape – no one has come forward credibly claiming any unconsential conduct be Trump.
Trump is a braggart. That is a very annoying Trait.
The media several posters here, the left and lots of neo-cons point that out constantly and call it lying.
It is lying of a sort. But not particularly consequential lying.
It is particularly annoying coming from someone who has been amazingly successful and has no need to bragg.
At the same time as Trump is being accused of lying – for bragging and exagerating.
He is also taken litterally by the same people accusing him of lying – often for the same statements.
Trump has cheated on his wife with adult women engaging in pretty tame vanilla sex,
That is all we have found.
He talks about “pussy grabbing” – which is offensive.
But there is no one who credibly says he has sexually assaulted them ?
There are no photos of him grabbing women’s breasts or butts.
There are no affidavits from numerous women alleging sexual harrassment.
There are no interns who have given him blow jobs.
There are no lawsuits in which he has lied under oath urged others to lie, and then had them lie.
We did not remove Bill Clinton from the presidence when he opposed the independent counsel every step of the way. Where evidence was destroyed, Where Clinton lied under oath in a deposition, lied under oath to a grand jury, and urged others to lie – and they did.
We did not remove Bill Clinton when absolutely everyone knows he is the harvey weinstein of politicians. Where he is an ACTUAL “pussy grabber”.
Trump braggs – often stupidly.
But his actions are not as offensive as Al Frankens.
And after a life time under the microscope what we have is that he is a braggart, who cheats on his wife, and denies it.
He might even lie about it under oath if you could ask him about it under oath. But you can’t, because you do not have a credible sexual assault allegation.
And that is also my point. There are lots of reasons to dislike Trump, to not vote for him.
There is STILL no reason for ANY criminal investigation.
Absolutely nothing that the press have found are a crime.
Having secrets is not a crime. Paying people to keep secrets is not a crime.
Having affairs is not a crime. Trying to build buildings in Russia is not a crime.
Trump’s contacts with Russia – personally or through his campaign are miniscule compared to those of Clinton and her gang. None of Trump’s contacts provide even a basis for a credible investigation, much less constitute a crime.
Many of Clinton’s actually justify a criminal investigation, and my well be crimes.
Yet, we are analy probing Trump.
Trump has bitched and moaned at the “unfairness” of the investigation of him.
But he has done nothing but complain.
He has openly lamented that despite far better evidence that FBI/DOJ will not investigate his enemies – something that they did secretly for Obama.
But he has not ordered them too, and they have not done so.
He has not destroyed evidence.
So far he has not even fought subpeona’s though much of what Mueller has confiscated he had no right to.
It is near certain that if we leave Syria things will go badly.
It is near certain that if we stay in Syria things will go badly.
No Jay, you are not “forthright.
You are driven by your emotions not facts, logic, or reason.
You are not obligated to be respectful.
I am not obligated to take you seriously when you are not.
You are obligated to justify yourself or government when you choose or advocate for force.
Jay
Anyway. a question: Could you give one example of anything that Trump has done that is actually criminal? Something that violates the actual law, and not just your delicate sensibilities? Something like using the FBI/DOJ/CIA to investigate political foes ? Somethin g like recklessly handling classified documents such that atleast 5 foreign powers likely obtained them – China in real time. Or like returning to Iran billions of dollars that the courts had issued judgements against to be paid to the US victims of Iranian terrorism ?
Or maybe rape, sexual assault, lying under oath (twice) obstructing justice by asking others to lie under oath for you (which they did and got caught).
……
Something like that, you know? An actual EXAMPLE? Because pissing people off, disagreeing with unelected generals and bureaucrats, even firing them, is not criminal
Try using some actual facts once in a while. I know you can do it!
To the extent that Presidents can make things better – it is primarily by dininishing the extent ot which government makes things worse. There is little beyond provide the fundimentals of the “rule of law” than government does that “makes things better”
Trump’s lying promises won’t be forgiven…
Staunch conservatives agree with him…
I beleive he is threatening to shutdown something like 12% of the government now that the farm bill passed.
I though you had an issue with people lying.
Shutting down government != shutting down 12% of government” – using your standards Walsh is LYING.
Or do those standards only apply to Trump ?
If only we cut government by 12% PERMANENTLY – that would be a start.
Lincoln ran the entire Civil ward with taxes less than 1/10 of those currently.
What is it that all that spending is for ?
It is irrelevant what Repo. Ryan think. It is irrelevant what George Takei thinks.
What matters is what Trump voters think.
And they want a wall.
And they want it now.
And they are prepared to pay for it.
I would note that Trump did NOT promise there would be no shutdown.
He made noises that maybe some compromise was possible – if he could get the money to build the wall elsewhere – like the miliatry.
My guess is he learned he could not.
Third quarter growth 3.4%. Reported online Christmas sales “shatter” online record sales.
That’s a deceleration of growth over the last quarter. And part of the growth is attributed to increased government spending (gasp):
“The increase in real GDP in the third quarter reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, state and local government spending, federal government spending, and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from exports and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased (table 2).
The deceleration in real GDP growth in the third quarter reflected a downturn in exports and a deceleration in nonresidential fixed investment. Imports increased in the third quarter after decreasing in the second. These movements were partly offset by an upturn in private inventory investment.”
Learn Math.
Government spending is increasing SLOWER than Growth. That means that even if you beleive in failed keynessian economics you can not attribute growth to government spending.
Regardless, litterally hundreads of studies of government spending over the past 50 years demonstrate that government spending NEGATIVELY impacts growth.
Yes 3.2 is below 4.0.
The Obama average was 1.8.
The Bush average was a wisker over 2.
US Exports are down from last quarter.
But they are higher than every other quarter in US history
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports
Inventory always rises in Q3 – christmas is coming.
When retailers anticipate a good christmas it increases FASTER than seasonal adjustments.
Only in the 21st century after decades of failure playing with socialism lite would 3.4% be considered exceptional.
The average for the 20th century was 3.5%, The averate for the 19th almost 7%
Talk about being lucky. England should be as lucky after Brexit
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6520393/BMW-hurtles-20ft-feet-air-crashes-tunnel-roof-hitting-road-barrier.html
Leftie journalist’s opinion: “Calling it a “critical moment,” Haberman reported that there was waning support for Trump from the right, saying “A number of conservatives who worked on the campaign and supported the president and now say, you know, I regret doing that, and this was a mistake, this administration is, you know, off the rails, and all of these investigations that are coming to a head will be a huge problem.”
Well sane conservative and libertarians could have told the GOP that from the start. Close the damn primaries so the parties choose the candidates and not and yahoo that want to vote. I still say Trump would have been out after a month had it not been for open primaries. Look at the returns from Iowa in 2016 primary!
True, Ron, but he did defeat “the most qualified candidate ever.” At least, according to Obama, she was. 😉
Priscilla, you made my day. Great laugh!
Although I dislike Bernie’s political views, I think he was much more “clean” when it came to being a good citizen and politician. But maybe that is because he lost and the bad stuff was never looked up.
2016—the race to the bottom for presidential candidates.
Ron;
I care that the process is trustworthy – not that everyone likes the outcome, only that the outcome conforms to the rules, not fraud. And even more important that voters beleive it does.
Texas has increased its prosecutions of voter fraud 5 fold – mostly because it is getting better slowly at detecting fraud. Pretty much all the detectable fraud is in absentee ballots.
But even when prosecutors find catch and prosecute voting fraud – it is not treated seriously. Ofenders are sentenced to an ARD like program and on completion their conviction is expunged.
Catch and release.
I have no special fault with what you propose – though I would note it will change the dynamics of the election. There will be different winners and losers.
Some will think that is good
Some will not.
Dave, my thought about parties and nominees is based on positions held by those parties, right or wrong based on others thinking. For instance, looking at Trumps positions on trade, middle east policies, NATO and other positions, he IS NOT a “true” Republican. I would bet good money, and lots of it that Trump would not have been the nominee had all primaries been closed to only registered Republicans.
If the red necks, reality TV viewers, non committed independents want a voice in the Republican party, let them register Republican and vote in closed primaries. If not, the let them form their own third party and nominatd individuals that support their positions.
But this thinking comes from someone that is registered Republican, leans libertarian (like the Paul family), could never vote for someone like Obama or The Bitch(Clinton) and would never vote for Trump! But I guess there are not enough.like me that find no nominee acceptible to justify a new party. (Or the libertarians finding a strong candidate)
Though there are subtle differences – Trump’s policies are a near identical to those of the Tea Party. Going back Further, Trump is barely distinguishable from Pat Buchannon one of Nixon’s speach writers and a perenial republican candidate for president.
Neither party is of one mind on all policiy issues.
A party politically diverse enough to include Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney can not proclaim Trump no “true republican”.
If he declared himself a libertarian tomorow – though at odds with libertarians on Trade in particular he is not divergent enough from libertarian to do more than call him a bad libertarian.
I am not trying to defend Trump in this, just oppose the ideological purity you are pushing.
I may hope that liberatians ultimately manage to grow to be a political party with actual clout.
In the meantime I do not want either political party to start deciding that libertarian republicans or democrats should be purged.
I am very happy that Mike Lee, Justin Amash and Rand Paul are in congress.
I wish there were MORE libertarians. More libertarian republicans and more libertarian democrats.
I narrowly missed getting to vote for a black libertarian democrat a few years ago.
They are unfortunately much rarer than libertarian republicans.
I will further support those republicans and democrats who share significant portions of libertarian values – even if they are not libertarian.
Unfortunately again those people are RARE in the democratic party, but much more numerous among republicans
Whether it is Tea Party Republicans or Trumpists, or fiscal conservaitves I will support them on issues where I have common ground.
I would be happy to do the same for like minded democrats but there are few.
I would finally note that those republicans and democrats who are closets to libertarian.
Who are closest to MY idea of moderate.
Are not at all moderate by the view of most here.
The defintion of moderate most at TNM push is repid leftist.
Despite 3 years of endless press naegative coverage – Trump gets 3 times as much coverage as Obama did and nearly all negative.
Trumps approval rate is higher than on election day and the same as Obama’s at this time in his presidency.
Whatever your source – maybe they should recheck their data.
Follow the money or the lack of it. A TREND?: “Billionaire megadonor Robert Mercer cuts back on support for GOP after being scrutinized for backing Trump”
“Losing Mercer would be a great loss. Any party needs as many people like him as possible,” political strategist Hank Sheinkopf told CNBC in an interview. “You don’t have to be a great forecaster to see that the GOP are going to have a real problem in 2020 because Republican futures right now are not something you want to put a lot of cash behind.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/21/robert-mercer-scales-back-gop-support-after-scrutiny-for-backing-trump.html
Of course – that is the goal or are you an idiot.
It is not necescary to have any basis. If the left can drive this baseless investigation long enough even people who support Trump will not touch him for fear of wasting their lives being relentlessly hounded by Meuller.
TODAY tell me what evidence you currently have in hand that meets the probable cause definition that a crime has been committed and the trump campaign committed it that would allow you to get a warrant ?
Yet the highest law enfocrcement agency in the country did get warrants – repeatedly.
And TODAY we still do not know how.
Nunes and house republicans have begged to have the much of the rest of the FISA warrants as well as several other things declassified.
Nunes has said that, the 30% of the Warrant application that is not based on Steele is much worse then the steele dossier.
I would note that NOTHING that Nunes has said has thus far proven wrong.
Even things that Schiff claimed Nunes misrepresented in the House meme ultimately proved well supported.
The problem is that by dragging out the exposure of the corruption within government we have become even more enured of it.
Everybody thinks we should stay in Syria and Afghanistan ? NOT!
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/why-trump-right-withdraw-troops-39352
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-establishment-will-never-say-no-to-a-war.html
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/washington-melts-down-over-trumps-syria-withdrawal/
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/422066-rand-paul-praises-trump-withdrawal-from-syria
Maybe Mexico will pay for the wall.
Lets see democrats block this ?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/ted_cruz_is_right_make_el_chapo_pay_for_the_wall.html
Your dopiness persists. You need a reality check. How do you propose getting those drug assets, by prayer and enthusiasm? Does Ted Cruz have them tucked away in a Texas vault? Is he organizing a possee to snatch them from Mexican banks?
“The lion’s share of any of his assets seized, rightfully–by law and agreement–belong to Mexico. They are unlikely to find much–certainly not $14 billion.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2017/04/26/call-for-former-drug-kingpin-el-chapos-assets-to-pay-for-border-wall-unlikely-to-fly/
And if you think Mexico will agree to turn over any of that money to build a wall they oppose you’re dumb enough to believe trump isn’t a pathetic pathological motherfucking pussy grabbing liar who has besmirched the office, the nation, with his untrustworthy behavior. Oh, wait – you don’t care if he’s guilty of all or any of those charges or not. Sorry, I forgot for a moment whom I’m addressing.
I am not proposing anything. Sen. Cruz is.
I have not overall thought all that much about this – as anything beyond pointing out your own flaws. Maybe it happens, maybe it doesn’t.
There are many reasons it might not be a good idea – but not those you came up with.
The biggest deal would be that we already have enough problems with bad application of asset forfeiture laws. We do not need to encourage the world – and other governments to become expansive about them.
I have no idea personally whether what he proposes is possible – neither do you – I doubt you have bothered to consider it much.
I do not always agree with Sen. Cruz, but only very stupid people presume he is stupid.
And you seem a bit looney too. There is no “any assets seized rightfully belong to ….”
I doubt you are right about international law – in fact I am near certain you are wrong.
But there is a more important issue. The relations of nations is an enduring functional system of anacho-capitalism. There is no such thing as international law in the sense you would normally use as law. International law is entirely voluntary, there is no world police.
I have told you repeatedly – that government is FORCE. All law is ultimately imposed by force – that is why it is so critical that law is limited and justifable and moral.
There is no world govenrment, there is no real world law, atleast not in the sense you are used to.
As a separate issue – why doe you beleive the lions share would belong to mexico ?
The drugs go to the US, the money comes from the US.
Drugs are not legally produced anywhere. No one has a better claim to the assets of the drug world than the US.
What I think about “the wall” is that it is a less bad idea than open borders without significantly restructuring our society.
The federal budget is over $4T, 5B is 0.1%.
As I understand it the shutdown itself will rapidly cost much more.
Trump won the election – whether you like that or not.
Just as Obama did in 2008. It was somehow exceptable to you to manhle the constitution to get PPACA through – despite being unable at the time to muster the support of the electorate.
The Aphorism elections have consequences is yours.
The wall is atleast legitimately constitutional even under the narrowest reading of the constitution.
I constantly hear from those at TNM that compromise is a principle – not a just a tool.
I do not consider it more than a tool. But I think it is quite reasonable to compromise on immigration.
Rather than go toe to toe With Trump, democrats should decide what they want in return for the wall. Fix DACCA legislatively, Fix family separation. Fix the current fight over what justifies assylum – while SCOTUS refused Trump’s emergency appeal request, it is highly unlikely he will lose the issue. The law itself is pretty clear – as is the constitution, assylum is for people in legitimate fear of their government.
While Trump is impolitic to assert that there are Trump Justices and Obama Justices.
There are clearly justices that make choices based on their personal views, and those who make choices based on the language of the law and constitution.
Ultimately anything but the latter is lawless.
I do not care much if parts of the government are shutdown.
I do not even care why.
I do not care much about the wall.
But that does not make it evil or stupid.
Or better put our law is so screwed up overall that Trumps wall is likely the lessor evil.
So follow your own principles.
Compromise. And accept that elections have consequences.
Figure out whether you are going to spend the next 2 years at war with Trump.
And get a clue – if that is your choice – you are likely to lose.
No Jay, trump has NOT besmirched the nation.
Trump appears to be more respected by the people in europe than in the US, than their own leaders.
Not that that is a meaningful measure of anything.
America is great – not because of whatever your inelucidable measures are.
But because of the overall behavior of the american people.
Not because we slather foreign aide. But because we show those in the rest fo the world how to trade value for value and improve their lives.
America is great because we the people aspire to greatness and we call those of other nations to join us in aspiring to greatness.
America is great because we are the land of liberty.
Trump has besmirched america ?
Did I miss something ?
That wall is intended slow the influx of millions from elsewhere in the world who CHOOSE to come here.
The wall is not there to preclude americans from leaving.
Your premise is self evidently wrong.
To this moment there are no charges against Trump.
Further what few allegations there are are credulous.
In nearly all instances there is just about zero doubt about Trump’s actions. You have spent 2 years trying to find proof of something that even today has ZERO evidence.
You say I do not care if Trump is guilty – of what ?
What if I say you are a murderer ? Do we have to appoint a special counsel to investigate ?
We have been through more than two years of this garbage. What we know is that there is not and never has been a credible allegation against Trump or the Trump campaign.
Just to be clear – to be credible, – there must be a real stated crime, and there must be real evidence that the alleged actual crime was committed.
Instead you have had us chasing unicrons for 2 years.
“You don’t care if he’s guilty of all or any of those charges or no”
What charges ?
Go ahead – actually tell me a real criminal charge that I am supposed to “care” about ?
Then tell me what actual evidence that you have of that charge ?
Or do we need to continue to make up the crimes and then make up the evidence to support them.
I absolutely support a form of the nuclear option – but not this.
What should be done is maintain the 60 vote rule for all new legislation and all spending.
But eliminate it for anything that reduces spending or reduces regulation.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/steve-daines-nuclear-option-border-wall
Stupid implosion on the left.
Yes, the left is racist – though it is the policies that were being advocated by socialist, not the rules for the DSA that are the problem.
https://newrepublic.com/article/152789/americas-socialists-race-problem
Persuasion should not ever be a crime – not even vile false lying by democrats.
https://nypost.com/2018/12/20/an-election-hacked-by-democrats/
Master Cakes is at it again! Oh, No! They refuse to make working dildo cakes or pentagram cakes or transexual transitionaing cakes.
Send Philliips to Hell ! Now !!!
What does it take for you all to grasp that trying to dictate who someone can and can not sell to is stupid ?
Phillips should just give up. He should just violate a different religious principle.
He should line – yes, sir ! I will take you order.
Then lose the order or make a cake no one would want or ….
You can not stop people from discriminate. You can only stop them from being honest about it.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/21/colorado_is_still_trying_to_destroy_jack_phillips_138986.html
217-185
Aparently Pelosi can not count.
he House vote Thursday comes after Democratic leaders had repeatedly told Trump that a bill with $5 billion in border-wall funding couldn’t pass either chamber of Congress.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-passes-stopgap-funding-bill-5-billion-trump-s-border-n950666
Apparently Pelosi can count the time from now until Jan 3rd.
Guess what happens to the government shut down then, dude.
Pelosi explicitly said that Trump could not get the republican votes needed to pass the budget now.
I have no idea what happens after Jan 3rd neither do you.
I have no idea what Trump will do. But I would be surprised if he will cave quickly.
Last time this went very badly for Schumer.
You seem to think this rests on the number of democrats in the house and senate.
What it rests on is where the american people direct their anger.
Overall, I think this is a win for Trump – even if he loses. So long as he does not capitulate quickly.
And this is a loss for democrats no matter what.
There are probably two people in the country who would have voted republican but for the dems stand on the wall.
There are plenty of people who will not vote democrat because of democrats stand on the wall.
I actually support open borders – and the democrats still have not made a coherent argument.
Just to be clear – I expect lots of negative press directed at Trump.
But I doubt he cares much. He gets lots of negative press no matter what.
You do understand so long as the shutdown continues the news cycle will be nearly entirely about the shutdown. Not Mueller, not Cohen, not Russia,
It Trump is going to have constant bad press it might as well be about something HIS voters care about.
There is only one word in this entire speach I would disagree with – “Progressive”.
I am pretty sure Trump feels the same.
Here we have Pelosi fighting with the president’s plan to deport people from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador as thousands are rushing the border.
But this is in 2014 and the President Who is trying to speed up deportations that Pelosi is fighting with is Obama.
Yes, We have no voter fraud.
We have no voter fraud today !
Not.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/12/18/texas_ballot_fraud_cases_in_2018_outpace_last_5_years_combined.html
Trump is an evil racist
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/21/black_leaders_forged_alliance_with_trump_on_sentencing_deal_138995.html
He’s not a racist.
He’s a bigot.
“One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
Fits you and the left better than Trump.
Trump is not seeking your destruction.
You are seeking his.
Carter Page the most diabolical spy ever.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/421771-10-pieces-of-evidence-against-most-diabolical-russian-spy-ever
BTW, this is trivial to solve.
D’s agree to fully find the wall in return for revising the family separation law and a daca fix.
and a 4th round draft choice to be specified in the future.
The Pretend President can’t stop lying: he signing a blank page.
Did the bills get signed ?
Did he sign a fake staged bill or not…
Oh, right – you don’t give a shit about fake staged presidential publicity ops.
You really are a ##@*#s (*too difficult to apply the proper obscenity to fit your obtuseness)
“Oh, right – you don’t give a shit about fake staged presidential publicity ops.”
How do you say such things with a straight face ?
EVERYTHING in Washington is fake and staged !!!
Have you watched a bill signing ? There are like 20 pens, and the president makes one stroke with each one so that the penns can be given away as momentos.
Being invited to a bill signing – and even where you do nothing but watch someone else sign their name is a huge deal !!
Trump si the moment you chose to whig out over the lunacy that has been Washington for my entire life ?
Your attacks on Trump have degenerated to this degree of pointless nonsense ?
I have no idea whether what you claim is correct.
Nor do I care. What you are whigging out about has FAR less significance than Obama’s telepromter.
The real deal…
I really do not want to get into a stupid argument over this – because it is all show anyway.
But those Obama papers look as Blank as Trumps – because you can not read writing at that resolution.
And your “real deal has one, bill, 7 pens and every democrat in creation is about to get a pen – for signing a paper that looks just as blank to me.
While in the photo YOU provided Trump has bills stacked up two feet tall he is preparing to sign.
Why we are debating this – I do not know. Trump/Obama it does nto matter. It is all staged anyway. You think Obama did a better job of staging things. I think trump did.
But again it does not matter.
Real laws actually got signed by both either on camera or off. Under the spotlights or in the basement.
What actually matters is the laws they signed, not the photo op.
On that Trump comes out the clear winner.
Obama signed lots of garbage
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-mcgurk-top-u-s-envoy-in-isis-fight-to-quit/
Oh goodie, makes room for some Russian:
“McGurk has led U.S. efforts to counter the influence of ISIS on the battlegrounds of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond since 2015. He was one of the few Obama appointees asked by the Trump team to remain in his post. Prior to that, he served in the Bush administration.
McGurk also led the successful and controversial secret negotiations with Iran that led to the 2016 release of American prisoners, including Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian.”
McGurk seems impressive. It is sad to see him leave. But if he can not in good conscience impliment the legitimate policies of the president – that are clearly withing his constitutional powers, that are the policies that the president ran on, and that are the polices that voters elected him for – then the honorable thing to do is resign. And I would call on EVERYONE in the executive branch who feels the same – over syria or ANY OTHER policy of Trumps particularly those he campaigned on to resign – as they should have done on Jan. 20.
I probably disagree with Jeff Sessions on just about every policy position he has.
But I beleive that he is an honorable person. He we absolutely right to recuse himself from the russia investigation. Though in hindsight he should have resigned entirely.
It was absolutely wrong to leave Trump with an investigation that had no basis and was being run by zealots – by the very swamp creatures Trump promised to eliminate.
Political investigations much be run by congresss.
Criminal investigations require an actual crime, and actual evidence that those being investigated are involved in an actual crime.
We still do not have that.
Dear Dumb-Dumb: when it is within the president’s constitutional power to make STUPID decisions, isn’t it the responsibility of true patriots who work for that numbskull to speak out in protest.
If those resigning in protest are speaking sincerely, from positions of importance, you should take notice of those alerts, and not stomp your foot like a petulent child.
There is no provision in the constitution concerning the intelligence of a presidents decisions.
The choice of a stupid or intelligent president is delegated to voters.
Trump, Obama, if you work for the president and you beleive he is wrong, and they issue is important to you – you should resign and speak out.
You are not permitted to sabotage the presidents policy choices from the inside.
“If those resigning in protest are speaking sincerely, from positions of importance, you should take notice of those alerts”
I have no doubt most if not all of them do. But strongly disagreeing with the president – so strong that you feel compelled to resign while the ethical thing, does not make you right on the issue.
Yes we should pay attention.
But it is stupidity to pretend this is a new issue.
The debate with Neocons has been going on for 30 years.
We realized the neocons were wrong long ago.
Now it is the time to act.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/syria-troop-withdrawal-middle-east-policy/
McGurk was scheduled to leave the State Department at the end of this year. He asked Pompeo, who has chosen a new anti-ISIS envoy, to hold him over until February, but basically, he was done. This was just a grandstanding move. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mike-pompeos-state-department-mocks-us-anti-isis-envoy-over-brett-mcgurk-resignation-good-job-brett
Why would you accept on faith the story slant from an unnamed ‘official’ directed by Trump appointee Pinocchio, Er..Pompano ?
This is the typical Trump cry-baby smear campaign for all those who worked for him and then criticized him.
I’d list all those he’s smeared that way, but it’s an exercise in futility discussing Trump-BS with you
Happy Merry Season.
Hopefully Santa will leave you Objectivity Candy tonight.
He was an Obama appointee, already notified that he was being replaced. Do your research. A Happy Merry to you as well. Hopefully, Santa will bring you some rational perspective candy. 😇
Some of us deal in facts, rather than naked assertions.
An awful lot of these “unnamed official” stories have turned out to be total garbage or heavily spun.
In a rational world the press would get tired of being burned.
I not only have no problems, I want to encourage those who when policy decisions are ultimately made that they disagree with, choose to resign
Yates, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, …. all should have resigned.
They all could have written scathing editorials about why they resigned.
If you stay – you impliment the choices of the president. If you do not beleive thaey are constitutional – RESIGN.
Just to be clear – though I am not impressed by Mattis and McGurk’s resignations, they are too self serving and involve to little risk to be meaningful,
Nothing I am saying above inherently means that resigning over principle can not be extremely honorable.
Resigning rather than violating your principles automatically grants you a bully pulpit to speak.
McGurk and Mattis’s problem is that on stepping on to the bully pulpit they had nothing to say.
There is no provision in the constitution prohibiting administration officials from publically criticizing presidential stupidity … in fact there is a constitutional protection for it. See if you can guess what that is…
“There is no provision in the constitution prohibiting administration officials from publically criticizing presidential stupidity … in fact there is a constitutional protection for it. See if you can guess what that is…”
That would be INCORRECT.
The first amendment prohibits government from passing laws restricting free speach.
It does not prohibit employers from firing you for what you say.
The first amendment applies to govenrment in the context of laws and law enforcement.
The text of the first amendment starts “Congress shall make no law”
If you wish to criticize your employer – whether that employer is the government or private – you risk losing your job.
When you disagree with your boss – in public service or in private, and you can not do what your boss requires of you – you resign.
That is what ethical people do.
Comey, McCabe, Yates, Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, ……..
Are not ethical people. They beleived that as unelected elites they are free to oppose in whatever way they wish from within government the polices of their superiors.
As to Syria, I find it amazing that Trump has converted the extreme left into a bunch of neocons.
Regardless – we have been listening to exactly this political debate for DECADES.
We have repeatedly Tried McGurks way. It has not worked.
Some neocons are genuinely decent people who beleive in what they say and do.
McGurk may be one of those.
There are myriads of arguments for staying in Syria.
There always will be.But ultimately we are going to leave, and no matter when that is the same people opposing it now will then.
If you want to debate whether we should stay in Syria or leave – lets do that.
I have no problem seeing arguments for both sides.
While I am glad Trump is leaving – and I want us out of Afghanistan too – and would have left as soon as we had destroyed or removed the taliban, still I will be happy to have the discussion.
There are plenty of points on both sides of the argument – though I will note that we are leaving eventually no matter what, and the perfect time for leaving will NEVER arrive, and every current argument for staying – will ALWAYS be an argument for staying.
Regardless – lets have they debate.
Of course that would be AGAIN – because we had that debate during the election.
Trump won, and his promise was to leave.
If this is your idea of proof that Trump is evil – your concept of evil is warped.
BTW as many have noted – Trump has no constitutional authority to remain in Syria.
If you want him to remain, have congress debate that and authorize it.
“Russians launched pro-Jill Stein social media blitz to help Trump win election, reports say
Building support for Stein was one of a “roster of themes” the Moscow-sanctioned internet trolls “turned to repeatedly,” report says.
An NBC News analysis found that Russians working under the direction of the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg-based firm run by a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, tweeted the phrase “Jill Stein” over 1,000 times around the time of the election.
The posts were often accompanied by variations of the same hashtag, “Grow a spine and vote Jill Stein.”
“This hasn’t gotten enough attention,” said Andrew Weiss, a Russian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, referring to Moscow’s efforts to promote Stein.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russians-launched-pro-jill-stein-social-media-blitz-help-trump-n951166
So should Germany indict Obama for this ?
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/17/op-ed-president-obama-and-chancellor-merkel-future-transatlantic
Get a clue. You can pretend the law is something it is not. You can even make incredibly stupid laws.
What you can not do is legitimately restrict the political speach of others.
Not Obama, Not Trump, Not Putin, Not Merkel, not the IRA.
You can not restrain the free speach of others – particularly not about politics.
You can not do it outside the US, you can not do it inside the US.
If you do not like what Vladmir Putin Tweets – vote accordingly.
That and your own speech is your only legitimate remedy.
What does that babbling have to do with dduck’s post?
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…”
John Stuart Mill
“This hasn’t gotten enough attention,”
Poppy cock.
This tripe has been repeated in one form or another that 60% of the american people actually beleive that Russians altered thousands of actual ballots.
And you still believe the Russian meddling had no effect on the vote.
If Russia hacked our voter registration systems or our voting machines – there is some evidence they tried – I would care about that. But that is our governments responsibility to secure.
Did Russia attempt to cause chaos in our elections ? Absolutely – they try that all the time.
Did they succeed – absolutely – because the left has totally completely whigged out over nothing and that is the ONLY effect Russia has actually had.
The scale of the russian operation was tiny. Do you understand how many messages per second there are on social media ?
I do not think the total number of Russian messages during the entire election cycle exceeded 1% of the total election related messages during 1 hr on the last day of the election.
More than half of the russian traffic was AFTER the election.
Next – the Russian messages and adds were pretty bad.
Do you really beleive that Ma and Pa clampet decided to vote for Trump because Russia ran an add with a shriveled potato as Hillary’s face ?
No I do not beleive anything Russia did had a perceptable effect on the election.
I am not sure that I beleive Russia flipped ONE vote.
I know the left ficxates on the fact that Clinton last 4 states by only 70,000 votes.
What is entirely missed is that Obama won those states by 2M votes.
Trump did not flip 70K votes in the rust belt. He flipped 2M votes.
Putin did not do that.
BTW given the scale of the russian operation it is unlikely that there were 70,000 views in the rust belt.
I would note some other factors. Russians entire yearly government costs 21B – that is less than Trump wants for the wall. Just the next year allocation for the wall that Trump wants is 25% of the entire russian budget.
HFA spent 1.6B on the election, TFA spent a bit over 800M.
PACS and Parties probably mutiply that by 4.
As large as that number is – it is a fraction of US snack food expenditures in 2016.
So the cost of the US presidential election was about 1/3 of the entire cost to operate the russian government.
So you think a few dollars spent by Putin had an effect ?
Cambridge analytics spent about 60 Times what Putin spent.
All of the above deals with the facts as they are.
But there is a much bigger issue.
What if all the nonsense the left believes really was correct ?
What if Putin really can do what no one on madison avenue can – and change peoples minds through advertising ?
You STILL end up with a “so what”.
You keep using deceptive words to spin the real facts.
Putin attempted to persuade people.
He did nothing that changed anyone’s vote outside of efforts to persuade.
I happen to beleive he was totally ineffective – and the data supports that.
But even if he miraculously was effective in the future – SO WHAT ?
If you do not like what Putin has to say – the correct response is to engage in persuasion yourself.
We respond to words with words – not nuclear misles.
I do not beleive that the US government should involve itself in anyway in monitoring speach during an election – much less actually interfering with political speach it does not like.
Just as americans express there opinion on British french canadian russian and german elections – so can they in ours.
In the end you toss out words like “influense” pretending you are not talking about persuasive poliical speach. Because you may not interfere with speach.
Not even Putins.
More stupid rumbling from President Dumbass.
(See if you’re smart enuf to know the real reason he’s pissed off at the Chairman)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/22/politics/trump-jerome-powell-fire-interest-rate-hike/index.html
I would have prefered that Trump had picked John Taylor over powel.
That said I do not think what Powel has been doing is wrong.
The Fed has to fix its balance sheet.
Frankly the real solution is to get rid of the Fed entirely.
Trump is correct that the Fed is partly responsible for the stock market collapse.
But sometimes doing the right thing has negative as well as positive consequences.
Finally pretty much every president has atleast privately railed about fed chairs that raise rates.
Trump asking advisers if he can legally fire Fed chief: Well someone has to take the blame for a declining market, it can’t be Fred’s kid.
Every time the interest rates go up, it costs Trump owned business (many with adjustable interest rates) millions $$$$$$$$$.
You know this for a fact ? Or are you just speculating ?
Every time the fed raises interest rates it costs the entire economy billions of dollars.
It also costs the US government billions of dollars.
There is a reason Wallstreet ALWAYS responds negatively to rate hikes.
That does not make the rate hike unwise.
Rate changes have positive and negative consequences.
Too lazy to research it yourself?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-14/trump-cost-from-fed-rate-hikes-may-already-top-5-million-a-year
That would be about 0.1% of Trump’s net worth.
That would be about how much he makes on his investments in 20minutes.
You are once again deluded by the fallacy of large numbers.
Trump is about as pissed at Powell over a 5M change in cashflow on a 5B portfoilio with probably 100B in assets as you are that you lost a penny.
Or maybe two things can both be true.
That Fed CAN be atleast partly responsible for the decline in stock prices AND the Fed CAN be right to raise rates.
That said the Fed is slowly becoming more and more irrlevant as Non-Government money like securities becomes more important and larger.
So to offer an invitation to actually debate the issue with the middle east, I offer the following information.
1. We have been fighting there for about 17 years to stop terrorist and indirectly help refugees.
2. We have spent probably more than 4 trillion dollars
3. There has been around 6,800 deaths
4. There has been around 50,000 wounded, many permanently.
5. There has been no exit plan other than Obama announcing a future exit and now Trump announcing an exit from Syria.
6. There has been little apparent support from ME allies against ISIS.
So I am asking everyone commenting about how bad this decision is the following and then will give you my opinion to start a reaL conversation, not the regurgitating of someone elses twitter crap
1. How long should we stay in the ME?
2. What is the limit to American dollars?
3. How many Ameficans are you willing to accept being killec?
4. How many Americans wounded?
5. When should ME countries begin fighting ISIS and other warlords and take the place of Americans?
6. If we are willing to accept American deaths and wounded in the ME, why are we not sending troops to Honduras and Guatamala to fight terrorist and cartels to stop refugees fleeing to America?
Here are my debate points.
1. If we have been unable to change the culture in the ME in 16+ years, we never will. In fact Bush 43 created this mess when he took out Hussian in Iraq.
2. There should not be another life lost or wounded .
3. America can continue funding ME partners in their fight as long as there seems to be at least a stalemate, but once there is not a willingness by ME countries to fight, then money should stop.
4. We need to negotiate with Central American countries, build relations with them and Mexico and provide support, incluing military, to eliminate the cartels. That will impact the number of illegals in this country substantially. I dont support being the worlds policeman, but I would support actions that stop refugees coming to America to escape violence.
YOUR TURN!!!!
First:
Get rid of Trump.
Things will quickly improve after that.
What issue is it that has not had americans at odds with each other that has emerged only since Trump was elected ?
OK,
1. When?
2. How long will it take to improve?
3. Will ISIS and Taliban desolve and why under your proposal?
4. Will you pull troops now or wait until Trump leaves?
5. If they remain, is 10 more deaths acceptable?
Please provide specifics like I provided
Under Jays proposal at best NOTHING will change. more likely things will get worse.
Jay is deluded if he thinks Trump is the root of anything.
Trump was elected because he fave voice to the concerns of tens of millions of americans who were tired of being shat upon by the left.
And the left learned nothing from that.
We will still fight over the same things.
Whether the right or the left gains or retains power NOTHING will be resolved.
The left will be as hypocritical as ever – if anything emboldened.
The right will get the clear message that the left has ZERO respect for the rule of law.
In truth things will likely get worse.
SQUISH!
I strongly suspect Trump is not happy with the Fed.
No president is EVER happy with Fed rate hikes.
But Mnuchins tweet does not confirm anything – except that Mnuchin did not advise Trump to fire Powell.
It is entirely possible that nothing happened at all.
There are no named sources to this story,
Ok, Ron, here are my debate points:
1. The idea that Obama “created” ISIS, because he pulled troops out if Iraq is BS. As is the idea that ISIS will be re-created if Trump pulls us out of Syria. The truth is, sharia supremacism will continue to exist, no matter what we do. If we defeat it in one Islamic nation, it’ll pop up somewhere else. We can play whack-a-mole forever, and American families can continue to see their sons and daughters die in god-forsaken lands, lands which will never accept Western concepts of freedom and democracy, because they believe that sharia law is supreme.
2. We need to continue to support Saudi Arabia against Iran, even though the Saudis are also Islamists. They are our allies, and have been for decades, they are willing to fight with us against Iran, and they have attempted to moderate their culture and to from closer diplomatic ties with Israel, our closest ME ally. Obama’s attempt to dump Israel and Saudi Arabia, and suck up to Iran was a sucker’s play, and weakened our position in the ME. Trump is trying to reverse that, with limited success.
3. We need to understand that, although Turkey is our NATO ally, it is also committed to destroying the Kurds, who are our partners in fighting Islamists. At some point we are going to be caught between the two. It’s another unsolvable problem, and any president is going to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. “America First” is not a bad way to make decisions, but it won’t solve this problem.
4. Finally and MOST IMPORTANTLY, immigration is the single most important issue of our time. It is fueling populist revolts throughout the western world ( US, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Italy and more), because it is to those developed nations that migration has been headed, and that migration is not benign. It is aggressive and parasitic, and its goal is not assimilation, but domination. Therefore, I agree with you that negotiation with Central American nations is key to changing this dynamic. The recent agreement with Mexico, announced by Kirstjen Neilson, to hold asylum seekers in Mexico, until their applications can be reviewed, is a good start. But, the cartels need to be destroyed, and that will take a military effort, which is one reason why we need to get out of the ME and direct our military efforts where they have a chance to be successful. I believe that Trump understands this, which is on reason why I continue to support him.
Most of what I’ve said is just a re-wording and amplification of your points, Ron. But your points are key,
Thank you!
Flip back to the 2015 campaign. How did conservative sfeel about isis then? What did they say then about Obama’s efforts on isis?
We will see how much they have changed now and whether as a group bthey can by into the fantastic idea that we need to bring our troops home so they can be. used for attacks in Mexico. That is literally the most idiotic idea I have heard anywhere on use of our military. God help us if that is actually what consrvatives believe today. Who knows what they will “believe” tomorrow.
Roby, I believe that there have been many conservatives, most of them known as “neo-cons” who have backed the use of the American military in the ME, regardless of whether the deployment was to protect American national security, or merely to assert American power in the region.
Of course, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the beginning of this, and the US has found reasons to maintain its military presence in the region ever since. I supported the invasion of Iraq, and it was a legal war, overwhelmingly declared by Congress. In retropect, however, I believe that it was a mistake.
As many have noted, Saddam Hussein was not threatening the US, and did not have WMD, so our overthrow of him accomplished no real furthering of US security. It did, however, drastically alter the balance of power in the region, by removing the regime that had been keeping the shia mullahs of Iran from establishing hegemony over the ME. Ron has written pretty clearly and eloquently about this US mistake many times.
The war resolution that sent us into Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003, has been used to rationalize our current presence in Syria, 15 years later, despite having no connection to the actual reasons why the US went to war in the ME and no concrete US national security risks. Both Obama, who promised to get us out of the ME, and Trump who also promised to get us out, have instead followed the advice of those who believe that we can and should never leave. Thousands of American soldiers have died, many more thousands of innocent Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians killed (Many Christians, such as the Yezidis, slaughtered, or forced into slavery) and we cannot say that we are any safer, or that our military actions have helped stabilize the region.
So, you’re right if you think I have changed my thinking on this, Roby, but wrong if you think it’s because of Trump. It’s because I have listened to both sides, particularly people like Ron, who have argued this position for as long as he’s been commenting here, writers like Andrew McCarthy, Michael Dougherty, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald and more, who have made a cogent argument that America is allowing its wealth and sovereignty to be squandered, while we spend blood and treasure in a hopeless quagmire.
I look forward to your arguments on this topic.
I supported Iraq invasion. I was wrong history has spoken , Iraq was adisatrous mistake. We should learn from that, like Vietnam. The world cop can be disastrously overzealous. Is there a middle ground between that and isolated nationalism? I believe there is and mattis obviously also so believes. Ron position and Dave’s sound very attractive, but the 20th century tested the idea of letting other countries and regions settle thier own fates. Did not work, was catastrophic. I will be grimly fascinated to see how many conservative s follow trump into nationalist isolationism. It certainly was not their view previously. I say that this phenomonon is herd politics, following the lead of the most flawed leader. Just one more principle out the window so easily. An authoritarian world awaits us. The Putin’s can out last the west. God help us.
I don’t know that Trump’s aim is to force us into national isolationism. If it is, then I will oppose that. Although you seem to believe that I (and Dave, although I can’t speak for him, and we often disagree) have adopted a “herd mentality” on this, you could not be more wrong. I believe that this latest move by Trump, to withdraw troops, is the right move in the wrong way.
Similar to the travel ban, it is based on all of the right reasons, but done in a hasty and chaotic way, as to make the end result far more difficult to achieve. However, Lindsey Graham has been talking about debating this in Congress, and having Trump delay his decision until there is some sort of consensus. If that happens (and I realize that “consensus” is now a dirty word to many) it may force some coherence onto our ME policy.
If Graham has proposed debating this, then I apologize for lumping him in with Shumer.
There is a full spectrum between neocon and isolationists.
Trump was on the dovish side of the GOP candidate slate.
Though everyone except Graham was at the most a hawkish non-interventionist.
That is also BTW where most of the country is.
Roby, I am going to copy this comment and keep using it until I get an answer from everyone against Trumps moves.
If it is so disastrous for America to leave Syria (where we have a grand total of 2000 troops), then why is it not important enough for congress to put their votes, careers and personal views on record and pass war articles against Syria which would require Trump to keep troops in Syria?
That should not be that hard to answer! Shumer can run his f’in mouth for the next 2 years, but he is not doing anything to fix the perceived problem he is ranting about. And that goes for Rubio, Graham and anyone else who stands before and empty senate chamber and makes a 10 minute televised speech.
Amen
Just to clarify: I am not against deploying our military in the ME. However, the leadership of the federal government and the military need to establish some sort of coherent and justifiable rationale, for regime change or occupation. It needs to be laid out and explained, debated by the Congress, not only in terms of strategic goals, but in cost-benefit. If we are going to be held hostage to a political squabbble over $5B in a $4T budget, then our leaders should at least explain why the Syria is more important than border security…
I am with George Washington.
The United States should look after the interests of Americans.
We should stay out of the conflicts of other nations.
It is very rarely in our interests to get involved.
Siding with one bad guy over another is a futile excercise in stupidity.
If you have never read Washington’s farewell address – you should.
Or Eisenhowers.
Or “The Ugly American”. BTW contrary to expectations – “the ugly american” is the hero of the book. It is our government that is the villain. The ugly american is fiction. It was first published in 1958 – before Vietnam. Yet the book is amazingly prescient. It is a history of Vietnam written BEFORE history occurred.
Should we have a strong military – absolutely.
De we need to spend more than all other nations on the planet combined ? NO!
Do we occasionally need to park a Carrier group off some beligerants coast ?
Possibly.
Do we need to assure the free navigation of the worlds seas – Absolutely.
Do we need to be prepared should the need to do more actually arrise – absolutely.
But that need is extremely rare.
Beyond that I mostly agree with you.
There are rare instances where the president must act before a debate can occur and the war powers act give the president far more than the power he needs to do so.
But beyond what is little more than military diplomacy of short term crisis’s the consent of congress is necescary – both by law and the constitution.
We do not have that in Syria – and have never had it.
The intervention in Syria against ISIS was illegal. It remains illegal.
It long ago exceeded any temporary action that the war powers act allowed.
Even Trump should have asked for sufficient authority to destroy ISIS before doing anything once he took office.
US OCO (Overseas budget for the Contingency Operations) (Afghanistan and Syria cost approx. 60B/year The one month cost exceeds what Trump is asking for FY2019 for the wall.
What are we accomplishing that is worth that ?
Further the official costs are likely between a factor of 2 and a factor of 10 too low.
The official cost (adjusted for inflation) of Afghanistan now makes it the costliest war in US history. Afghanistan ?
The direct damage as a result of 9/11 was about $7B. Possibly the most important thing we needed to do following 9/11 was to rebuild the towers. Fast and if anything Bigger.
That is the appropriate memorial. A giant FU to terrorists throught the world
Instead we are still dawdling. And we have spent atleast $2T to accomplish next to nothing in the mideast, and countless lives of our own and others.
We were justified in Obliterating the Taliban.
That is ALL. We accomplished as much of that as we were going to in less than 90 days.
And we even botched that and let many of them escape.
Regardless having driven them from power it was time to come home.
There was little doubt that if they misbehaved again we could come back – rapidly and cheaply. Instead we blew more than $2T – and what did we get for it ?
No I am not a big fan of much of what we have done in the mideast.
In fact outside of WWII – there is not much of our foreign military adventures that were not a mistake.
Priscilla, One thing you did not mention in your very good comment about Syria.
The only condition the Supreme Court has ever expressly endorsed with respect to the President intervening in a military action without congressional approval is to “repel sudden attacks,” which basically means the president doesn’t have to wait for congressional authorization to respond militarily to an attack against us. That should be the only time a President can take action, and then they should require retroactive approval. In most rulings I see by SCOTUS, the Constitution gives the president defensive war power without congressional action only. The President should not be allowed to willy nilly send troops any where he wants without approval. And that is wht he did with Syria. We were not under attack!
If congress finds Syria so damn important, then let them direct the president to keep the troops there.
For dduck, Jay and anyone else disagreeing with Trumps move, why would congress not do that other than to make political points for the 2020 election?
Neither party in congress wants an actual debate over the use of the military.
But the party out of power always wants to rail about the presidents unconstitutional use of the military.
You are absolutely right about how things should be.
But it is not going to happen.
We would end up isolationist if we required congress to act.
The origins of Neo-Cons are democratic Hawks from the 60’s who became disenchanted with the pasifistic nature of their own party and gradually shifted support to Republicans.
As a rule of thumb from the 60’s to the present they have seen EVERY foreign issue as a justification for the use of the US military. There is no proposed military intervention anywhere that Neo-Cons did not support.
Having a strong military AND using it regularly is the core to neo-conservatism.
Though some Neo-cons share other values with other conservatives – such as fiscal constraint, they have never been well integrated into conservatism.
They tend towards big govenrment, funding a big military trumps fiscal restraint. They tend NOT to favor limited government.
Hillary Clinton is practically a card carrying neo-con.
Remember the Neo-cons came to the republican party from the democratic party.
Trump has chased them back.
That is fine with me. Democrats can be the party of endless wars.
We should not have gone to Iraq. Though Bush II was otherwise not really a neo-con (Chenney was). Obama did not campaign as a neo-con. But he governed as one.
He did not see a conflict he did not want to stick our nose into and involve our military in.
Trump is right to leave Syria. I would have left sooner. But he campaigned on defeating ISIS and leaving – he has done that.
Trump is right to get out of Afghanistan – though he should do so faster, and he should have done so earlier.
Obama should have kept his campaign promises.
American interests are not served by acting as the policeman for the world.
When we were preparing to go to Iraq in 2003 I was conflicted.
Sadam was a bad man and it seemed a good thing to get rid of him.
I expected we would have the support of the Iraqi people – we did not.
As someone else who I respect pointed out later – no matter how bad your own rulers are, you will fight conquerors.
Though I initially tepidly supported Iraq, I started with lost of misgivings.
Almost immediately after the fighting ended everything rapidly went to hell.
It was self evident quickly that we were clueless about “nation building”
Something Bush II had actually campaigned against.
Having deposed Sadam we should have left immediately.
Or better still – never have invaded.
I also had serious problems with the so called “bush doctrine”.
There is no such thing as a justified pre-emptive war.
That I understood BEFORE we went in.
In 2008 I thought Obama was naive about Iraq and Afghanistan and Gitmo.
Not that we should not leave. But that he was going to be able to do so.
Trump and Obama campaigned on much the same things there.
Getting us out of a mess in the mideast quickly.
I beleive Both intended to do that.
I was correct in my assessment of Obama – he was naive. And as a result he was easily manipulated by “the generals”. Even Trump was initially cowed by them despite his claims during the campaign to know more than they do.
I think part of what we are seeing regarding Mattis is something that the rest of you do not get regarding Trump.
And that is that he actually has integrity – a kind that is uncommon.
Absolutely he exaggerates and blusters.
And the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall was stupid.
At the same time he keeps his promises – or dies trying.
And he expects others to keep theirs and is not happy when they do not.
That is how business works.
I think that Mattis and Kelley and McMasters promised Trump that if he dropped his plan to get out quickly that they would get us out of Afghanistan and Syria more slowly.
I think they were lying and they knew it. Just as they or others like them had lied to Obama and to Bush II.
The difference is when they failed to keep their promise to Trump – Trump lost respect for them. Trump learned that he DOES know more than the generals. Or more importantly, that the generals do not provide their best advice to accomplish the objectives of the president and the people, but attempt to manipulate their leaders to accomplish their own objectives.
It is stupid to presume there is no politics in the military.
Roby, (second try)
.. since you did not link this to any other comment, I suspect this is a new topic. So could you provide info on who proposed attacking Mexico?
If it was in response to my comment about bringing home troops from the ME and using military to support central America, one can look to Columbia to see that help from America can help to fight cartels.A U.S. official said “the program (to reduce drug trafficking and cartel influence) did succeed in breaking up large drug cartels that posed an existential threat to the Colombian state. Now, the cartels are only “a still serious, but manageable, law enforcement challenge,” the U.S. official said.
So if your response to my comment to debate using military in the ME and moving them south into central America, it has already been done with much success. And in addition, the FARC has laid down weapons which also makes the country safer. That is why you see few Colombians coming to the border,.
I am as opposed to sending Troops to south american to fight drug cartels as to sending them to the mid east to fight terrorists.
If you want to solve the drug problem and get rid of one of the major arguments for the wall, legalize drugs – all of them.
If you want to further get rid of arguments for the wall. Get rid of the minimum wage.
Get rid of green cards, get rid of government involvement in employment, and employer collection of employee taxes.
Get rid of the welfare state – or atleast make non-citizens ineligable.
Much of our immigration law can go away – if lots of other stupid laws did.
Open borders worked quite well in the 19th century.
Conservatives in 2015 as today were not one monolithic ideologicaly pure block.
Neocons supported greater intervention in Syria then – and criticised Obama for being weak.
Libertarians, Rand Paul, Libertarian republicans. I beleive much of the “freedom caucus” opposed doing anything in Syria.
At the same time – we are talking about a radically different circumstance.
In 2015 ISIS was the effective govenrment of a large portion of Syria, and Iraq.
We had a Terrorist group that had created a terrorist run government in a terrorist run state.
In 2016 I think every prolitical candidate vowed to destroy ISIS – and get out of Syria.
That is what Trump has done.
I have not heard Trump or any republican Senator or congressmen propose attacking mexico.
Current illegal immigration is NOT from mexico. Mexico’s standard of living post NAFTA has risen so high mexicans are staying in mexico.
Never heard your argument.
The argument I have heard is that the MONEY spent on military operations in Syria and Afghanistan is much more than the cost of the wall.
Ending our efforts at global policing, we can use part of the savings for “the wall”.
You can atleast get the arguments straight.
I have absolutely ZERO doubt that if you try hard enough you can find a handful of Republican congressmen who attacked Obama for what they are begging Trump to do today.
But with the left it is not a few obscure reps that have flipped.
It is Pelosi, Schumer and Obama.
Perspective On The Irrational Idiot Trump..
https://twitter.com/mrdanzak/status/1076840459190919169?s=21
We keep getting these nonsense stories.
I would suggest going on line.
Youtube has a pretty good video regarding how the US nuclear launch system works.
Though we do not know everything it is substantively correct.
The “mattis reportedly ….” is clearly erroneous – as the process that has existed back atleast as far as eisenhower, specifically precludes the president from unilaterally launching a nuclear strike under any circumstances.
Though the president has the final decision, it is not unilateral and it can not be done without consultation. Even The USSR had a similar system. We narrowly averted a first strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis when a Russian officer refused to launch without all the required confirmations
“Fake News”.
Generally any story that starts “XXX reportedly” is likely false.
Mattis resigned because he disagrees with Trump over Syria and drawing down in the mideast generally.
He is particularly concerned with China as a threat.
If you bother to read – there are LOTS of opinions on that very issue, and have been for decades.
There are innumerable MILITARY scholars and analysts – possibly even a concensus that beleive our involvement in the mideast WEAKENS us with respect to China, North Korea and Russia.
First it makes us look weak being caught in an interminable guagmire.
Next, it makes those countries more likely to beleive we will not act militarily in other spheres because of opposition at home.
Finally it over extends our forces. Whatever forces we have in the Mideast can not easily be redeployed to some other hotspot.
To be clear there are arguments in favor of remaining.
But pretending this decisions is obviously stupid, or an example of Trump VS the world – is a sign of your own stupidity.
I have read myriads of editorials from McCarthy, Sulivan, Gillespie, and myriads of others some not big Trump fans.
What is really disturbing is why arent the same people criticizing Obama for not leaving Afghanistan and Syria – mostly from the left, not praising Trump now ?
It is probably not possible to know if this is the right thing to do – though I strongly believe that it is – and so did George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower.
It is inevitable that there will be more terrorism in the mideast – and here.
That will happen whether we withdraw or not.
It is not possible to know – not ahead of time, and not even afterwards, that withdrawing made things worse, or made them better.
There are lots of smart people who have looked at this – and they do not agree.
This is BTW common of many problems we face.
The best we can do is try to look at past history.
So tell me where past history demonstrates this is likely a mistake ?
More Perspective On The Irrational Idiot Trump:
Or more irrational perspective on the president.
Further Speculation On Idiot Trumpm
Hume is correct – with respect to Mattis and several others resigning over Syria.
My guess is Trump knew Mattis would resign if he withdrew.
My guess is the big explosion last spring over Trump’s insistence that we withdraw from Afghanistan was because Mattis, and probably Kelley threatened to resign if he did.
All we know is that Trump was demanding a plan regarding afghanistan, and one that got us out quickly, and he was very very very unhappy with what the military came back with.
My guess is as I said that several resignations were threatened and Trump capitulated – on some basis like “you have 9 months to demonstrate progress”.
ISIS is effectively defeated. Terrorism in the mid east is not defeated – that was not the goal.
It is arguable that staying might reduce terrorism. It is also arguable that it might increase it.
Syria is a mess – and our conduct – particularly during the obama administration has been farcical.
Ultimately it required US troops to defeat ISIS. It also required some compromises with distateful people – Asad, Putin, Erodegan, the Kurds.
Will Syria still be a mess if we leave – absolutely, and it will be a mess if we stay.
But if we leave it will not be OUR mess.
Contra much of the news – we promised the Kurds nothing.
Not in 1991, not today. It was/is in their interests to defeat ISIS, it was/is in the interests of Turkey, and of Syria. That might be the only interest they had in common.
Regardless, the Mattis/Trump conflict is real – we know about it. We know the issue the conflict is over, and we can judge whether Trump is an idiot or not.
You need not agree with Trump to get past the nonsense that leaving Syria is NOT stupidity.
It is a rational choice. Mattis might beleive the choice should be made differently.
He clearly believes so strongly.
But alot of us do not. We did not long before Trump was a candidate.
Trump and republicans significantly enlarged the defense budget.
I would have slashed it radically – and I beleive in a strong defense.
But I do not beleive we need to spend more than the rest of the world combined.
I am capable of beleiving that Mattis is a good man, with sincere beliefs and that he is WRONG.
How about you ?
You seem to buy anything that anyone says that is in conflict with Trump.
Whatever Trump says – in your world he is wrong and an idiot.
If Trump said Racism is bad – you would be quoting Richard Spensor calling Trump an idiot.
You spray us all with every signle criticism of Trump – without any filtering, on the presumption that Trump is always wrong and those who criticise him are always right.
In doing so you have destroyed your own credibility.
Ultimately Mattis might be right. We will never know.
But I am many many many others – long before Trump think otherwise.
I am used to Trump’s daily idiotic statement s and usually just ignore them these days. But his tweets on mcgurk are really wretched. Unfit. Now, let the so whatting and why should I caring commence.
I have realized that I would have the same reaction to Dave and Priscilla’s comments no matter which ideology or party they adhered to. If they were both raving liberals they would have the same effect on me they do now and would not pursuade me of anything, on in fact would incline me to opposition. (As raving liberals in fact do in general ).
So your reaction to facts logic, reason is to ignore it – no matter what ideology it comes from ?
You are not engaged in a conversation or debate.
You are vomitting whatever you want to emote at the moment.
I will be happy to have an actual debate or discussion of facts, logic, reason on most any subject.
But what purpose is served if your comments do little more than claim to be offended – usually without being sufficiently specific to determine whether any offense is warranted.
Trump can be disturbingly insulting sometimes – though he typically reserves his ire for those who went after him first.
At the same time, You, Jay, the press the left constantly press this outrage of the moment nonsense, and quite often over nothing.
I have not bothered to get on Twitter and find all Trump’s McGurk Tweets, or McGurks tweets.
But I am aware of several that were published elsewhere
Trump noted that McGurk was an Obama hold over who had long previously set his departcher date for February.
Resignations over principle should cause us to take a careful look at the issues.
But resigning a few months before you are leaving – is not much of a resignation over principle.
Regardless, we can examine the issue of leaving Syria now. We can have a long discussion about it. We can each cite innumerable people who support or oppose.
And infact in some form this particular debate has been ongoing since the 60’s.
It is the central issue of neo-conservatism.
Neo-cons never see any foriegn issue that does nto require US military intervention, and never see anytime that is not way too soon to end that intervention.
There are a plethora of viewpoints inbetween.
But that is the core debate.
It is usually possible to credibly argue that some neo-con called for intervention is a bad idea.
Quite simply we are not the policemen of the world, and to the extent we have tried we have failed. I am hard pressed to think of a single military intervention in the afffairs of other nations since WWII that has turned out well. Even WWII was essentially caused by our unwise intervention into WWI.
When we should get out is a much more difficult question.
There is a valid argument that no matter how badly we may have botched some intervention that leaving too soon could make things worse – for us and for others.
If you wish to make that argument – please do so. I am listening.
But understand that just because the argument is valid, does not mean it is correct, or that I will be persuaded.
We can not know what will happen if we leave. We can not know what will happen if we stay.
Nor will we ever get a controlled experiment where we can compare leaving with staying.
It is near certain if we leave – bad things will happen.
It is near certain if we stay – bad things will happen.
It is not possible to know for certain which outcome will be worse or better.
Ultimately each of us must decide that for ourselves.
Aside from our own oppinion – many many people have weighed in on this.
Dozens of neo-cons are making the argument that we should stay.
But an equal number of very credible people – people that at other times you would have respected and seriously considered have argued the opposite.
Further historically our 1st president as well as our 34th have argued just as those supporting withdrawing from Syria have.
If you are painting Trump as alone in the woods and a stupid idiot on this – you are delusional.
There is a very real issue to debate here. One that we have been debating in some form since George Washington. Nor can you claim that only screwballs and idiots are on trumps side. Even Pres. Wilson was against intervention in Europe until he was for it.
If as a separate issue you want to actually link to specific Trump tweets that you find “over the top” as well as the McGurk Tweet or remark that provoked them, we can discuss that too.
Trump does go “over the top” some time. Of course his opponents do too.
But even if you can make the case that Trump’s tweets about McGurk – which you have characterized but not offered – Sorry Roby, I actually like to form my own oppinion on such things – not buy into something being sold to me all wrapped with a bow on it, if you can make that case – I will agree with you that Trump tweeted unprovoked and offensively – if this is an actual example of that.
But that will not alter one iota the debate over leaving Syria and Afghanistan.
It is time to leave Syria. Trump is FAR from alone in that assessment.
We never should have gotten in to Syria.
It is arguable that even destroying ISIS was not a legitimate goal.
Regardless, the actual goal has been accomplished.
It is time to bring our troops home.
Hopefully we will not use them so frivoluously in the future.
As a separate issue it is nearly two decades PAST time to bring them home from Afghanistan. The goals there were accomplished within a month of the start of the Afghan war. Afghanistan is the perfect example of the mess that can happen if after accomplishing our goals we start to think too highly of ourselves and manufacture more goals.
Those arguing to stay in Syria are making the same arguments that were made to stay in Afghanistan. How well did that work out ?
One of the few things Obama was right about in 2008 – was leaving afghanistan.
I did not beleive he would do so – not because he was wrong. But because he was naive.
He beleived that he would be able to do what he wanted, what the american people wanted even what was right – that “the deep state” would not lure him to their side – which they successfully did.
They tried the same with Trump – and even briefly succeeded.
But Trump has more character than Obama.
I know you do not want to here that.
But character is keeping your word.
It is making hard choices.
It is much more about actions than words.
There are myriads of reasons to stay in Syria, and Afghanistan.
But none of them are really that good.
Historically they have worked very badly.
Roby,
you are the raving progressive here.
Claiming you would be uneffected by the raving left lacks credibilty.
You are the raving left.
Read corker’s very on point comments on border security, dreamers and previous offers from Congress rejected by trump. In the Hill.
I am all for an intelligent national discussion on military policy and world copping. It’s not easy to see how that will happen in this environment where so many people have no actual principles and are victim to impulse and wfanting whatever will most irritate the other side. There are going to be huge consequences of Trump’s foreign policy, he is going to own them, his supporters as well.
If you want me to read something – maybe you could link to it ?
Lets have an intelligent discussion on military Policy.
Priscilla and I are doing so. We do not share exactly the same views, but we are offering slightly different positions – and defending them.
All I have heard regarding other positions is “trump is stupid to leave syria now – everyone says so”, well everyone does NOT say so. Lots of people who do not like Trump at all, agree with him on Syria.
Regardless – MAKE AN ARGUMENT.
But quit telling us Trump is a stupid ass over this, when it is quite clear than a very large number of intelligent people agree with him – even some who are holding their noses to do so.
As to border security – AGAIN, lets have an actual debate.
We are not. Just like Syria we are having an insult match, not a debate.
The only one actually making an argument is TRUMP.
I disagree with some of his arguments – though not all, but atleast he is making those.
I have no clue were Trump’s opponents stand on border security – except “against trump”.
Are they for open borders ? It woudl seem so by their angry rhetoric – but whenever it comes up they claim otherwise.
Nor can we use their past arguments – as not so long ago they sounded like Trump.
If they have had a change of heart – fine, explain.
But ranting that Trump and his policies are evil is just ad hominem particularly as Trump’s policies are to a large extent indistinguishable from Obama’s and what most of those who oppose Trump now claimed they were for a decade (or even 4 years) ago.
Family separation was pioneered by Obama.
In fact most Trump programs were pioneered by Obama. The Travel Ban, ….
Obama may have been wrong too – but no one was calling him racist and cruel.
Deals get rejected all the time.
More deals have been rejected by democrats in congress than by Trump.
Schumer offered the wall in return for the Dreamers 9 months ago, and then reniged.
I am sure Trump would take that today.
There is a fundimental reason why reaching any deal is going to be difficult.
That is that Democrats actually want the status quo.
They do not want to solve the problem of the Dreamers. They do not want to be asked of have to answer hard questions on immigration. They do not want to make difficult choices regarding the law.
I have zero doubt Trump would accept a deal that
assured Dreamers would not be deported – though I would ask you who is a dreamer and how many are there. As I understand there are nearly 2M people who were brought into the US under the age of 18 (or claiming to be) in the US right now. But when Obama declared DACA with no legal authority – only about 600,000 people registered as required.
Resolve the issue of family separation – in return for some mechanism to quickly deport those caught at the border. The law provides an expedited process for those caught near the border. But only if they remain in custody. Without “family separation” any immigrant that brings their family and is caught at the border, will take atleast 18months to deport – if at all.
Resolve whether gang violence and demoestic abuse qualify you for asylum.
The law does nto provide for those, in fact the law makes it clear than asylum is for those with a legitimate fear of their government – despite the nonsense in the 9th circuit.
But we can change the law if we want.
On these and many other immigration issues – we can have a debate and make decisions and pass laws.
The reason that is not happening is purely because the left prefers the status quo.
Rubio had an immigration deal negotiated in 2013. It tanked when the left grasped that resolving the law was NOT in their interests. That solving problems did them no good.
All that predates Trump.
I would note that in terms of deals – the Wall was agreed to as part of a deal between democrats and republicans in 1986 – 32 years ago democrats agreed to build a wall – when it would have cost 3.5B for the whole thing.
So please do not talk about Trump reniging on deals.
Has Trump been unclear about what he wants ? Has he flip flopped and vascillated ?
You may not like his principles or what he wants – but he is not unclear about them and clearly has them, and shares them with 10’s of millions of people.
Further Trump has been prepared for public debate, and for compromise to get what he wants. He is alone in that.
How has Trump been “impulsive” ?
He said what he would do as president and he is doing what he said he would.
You say Trump is just about irratating the other side.
AGAIN – he ran on a platform. He won on that platform.
The left pulled every political dirty trick in the book to pass PPACA
Was that just about pissing off republicans ? Or was it because they beleived in what they were doing (as bad an idea as it was) and because they promised it and intended to deliver.
Aside from not breaking the rules what has Trump done differently regarding what he promised ?
I do not have to agree with what Trump wants to accept that NOTHING he is doing is different from what Obama did, to get what he wants EXCEPT that Trump plays by the rules, and Obama made them up as he went.
“There are going to be huge consequences of Trump’s foreign policy, he is going to own them, his supporters as well.”
Lets get past the nebulous fear mongering – what consequences ?
Europe is in danger of going Nazi. The threat in Europe is much much farther to the right than Trump. Trump is a bleeding heart liberal compared to the growing right in the EU.
We have new Trade deals with the EU, Canada, and Mexico.
I do not think any are so great as Trump has claimed.
but they are incremental improvements over what came before.
They do not support your “end of the world” scenario.
People have been killing each other in the mideast since Mohammed. It is not new.
If anything the mideast looks better than it did in 2010. We do not have Libya and Egypt preparing to devolve into chaos. Whatever you think about leaving Syria it is winding down.
Even if a fight broke out betweent he kurds and turks – how would that be worse than the libyan civil war.
Some progress has been made with North Korea – not alot, but sill more than in 75 years.
I just do not see this sky is falling scenario you are offering.
Absolutely some bad things will happen in the mideast.
Pick any year since Mohammed and that is true.
But you are correct – if the mideast somehow manages to get worse than it was in 2010 and 2011, and 2012, then absolutely Trump should be blamed for it.
But that was really bad. We are not even close.
Ron what is the worst case scenario if your views prevail? People like myself believe isolationism would be a catastrophic failure in a short period of time and we would be right back to our present methods but in much worse shapeand higher costin blood.s
I am not an isolationist. I understand there are clear dangers to America from around the world. But there are two things I learned when I was draft age.
1. You can not believe 90% of what the government tells you. Viet Nam proved that!
2. We have a legal document that created this country. It is called a constitution. Unlike documents today that are thousands of pages long (ie Obamacare), this document is just a few pages long. It clearly defines the design of government and the responsibilities of the branches of government. I believe that document should be followed.
When we have branches of government making decisions (ie Judicial legislating, not ruling) (president sending troops to wars undeclared and not an immediate threat to America), then the constitution is not being followed. When that happens, drip by drip, one can find the country far removed from the legalities of the constitution and one or two individuals making really bad decisions without anyone realizing that has happened.
So my position right now is we should not be in Syria, not because there may or may not be the possibility of ISIS coming back (they already are, in Afghanistan), but because the president has not been directly given that authority to be in Syria by congress.
Now someone most likely can go back years and find some vague legislation that Trump could use to stay in Syria, but that is wrong.
I only want the government to follow the laws of the land. On anything! And on Syria, congress should make him stay if it is that bad!
Roby, with respect, I think that you are equating non-interventionism with isolationism. Syria’s civil war does not threaten US national security…perhaps that argument could have been made when ISIS controlled territory in Syria, and was using that territory as a base of terrorist operations against Americans, but that is no longer the case. If the Saudis and the UAE say that they are willing to fight with and defend the Kurds, then we should get out of this regional war.
We should stay engaged diplomatically and, in particular, pressure Turkey to stay out of this as well. If they refuse, then refuse to sell them arms and missiles. We have leverage that we can use without putting our troops in harms way.
Do we have a treaty with the Kurds ?
If not, then we have no obligation to defend them.
That does not mean there are not circumstances we might chose to do so,
And honestly I doubt that Turkey is going to start an open war with the kurds.
Turkey is full of kurds. There is a serious risk that the Turks could find themselves wiuth an independent kurdistan – that included parts of Turkey. Wars have ways of not turning out as you hoped.
Roby, absolutely NO ONE is talking isolationism.
Even George Washington did not adovcate that.
And we are not going back to Washington no matter how right he was.
Trump’s foreign policy is constrained interventionism, as comparied to Obama’s any excuse will do interventionism.
Trump is not using the US military except when compelling US interests are involved.
I think he is using a much broader definition of compelling US interests that I would.
Regardless, you are beating the crap out of a straw man.
You can find the GOP debates on precisely this on youtube.
Before you make false claims about Trump’s positions – you should hear those positions from Trump.
BTW what are the principles of those demanding we stay in Syria ?
It is just as easily arguable that remaining in Syria will PROVOKE more terrorism and more violence.
Is there any place we have stayed long term that did not do so ?
Regardless, tell me your position ? When can we use the US military and when should we bring them home ?
It is always possible to make a scary argument about what might happen.
I can make scary predictions about what might happen if we stay.
We defeated the Taliban in 90 days. We did so with less troops than we have now.
We could have left, and come back 10 times and had it cost less and killed less people than staying the follwing statement is nothing more than a dire prediction without any factual basis.
“a catastrophic failure in a short period of time and we would be right back to our present methods but in much worse shapeand higher costin blood.”
Trump fires mattis shits all over him on the way out. Class the way to treat a competent man and an actual American hero ant true Patriot.
I wonder if this might just possibly rouse enough conservative s to cast doubt on Trump’s blank check that he has enjoyed thus far . Probably not but a man. Can dream.
Unless you know something I do not – Mattis and McGurk resigned over what they considered a matter of principle in Syria.
They were not fired. Mattis made clear his reasons in the letter he wrote.
For all its eloquence in the end it falls short of offering the principles and justifications for staying in Syria that you seem to think Trump has failed to offer in leaving.
Naked Assertions about fears is not an argument. It is just as easy to make the same fear based argument against staying.
I am glad that Mattis resigned – it does show integrity. Rather than stick arround and sabotage Trump – as Comey, Yates, McCabe, Strzok, Page,. Ohr, …. did .
@RonP 1:39PM: This is my viewpoint also:
The missing element in this discussion/problem is that Congress abrogated it’s role in declaring war and then leaving the running to the Commander in Chief.
Too much power in the hands of even a well meaning executive branch can sometimes lead to trouble.
The following is excerpted from the National Review, McCarthy, and there is much I don’t agree with, but it makes the Congressional point well.:
“Want to declare war against ISIS? I’d be up for discussing that. Or, as a matter of honor, an authorization of military force to protect the Kurds for what they’ve done on our behalf? I could be persuaded. Or even a declaration of war against Iran — it wouldn’t require us to invade, but it might be useful as part of a real “maximum pressure” strategy, rather than just making mean faces at them in Syria. I’d be open to all of that; but not to more unprovoked military interventions that don’t have congressional authorization.”
https://www.nationalreview….
dduck..Thanks, I agree.
Yes, so do I.
We can agree.
More important – we can agree to have real honestly open debate using facts, logic, reason.
I might oppose many of the things McCarthy discusses.
But I am not opposed to debating them.
And I would hope that the final decision would be based on what position won the debate, not partisan politics.
I do not think we should declare war on ISIS,
Authorize the use of force to defend the Truks,
or declare war on Iran as part of a presure strategy.
But I would welcome a debate on those issues. and could be persuaded or could lose the argument.
But Mccarthy and Ron are correct – this takes place in public in congress.
This is what Corker has to say about Trump’s ABRUPT withdrawal order. Early on
Corker was a Trump enthusiast – initially a Trump confident, he was sounded out as a VP possibility, but turned it down. And like anyone with a modicum of sense, he soon soured on the idiot president. To know him, it seems, is to despise him.
Jay can you comment in your own words what we should do in Syria, when and why? I really dont care what other talking heads are saying in the press, twitterverse or Faceworld.
Ron: Generally the links reflect my opinion, and express them far more eloquently than I can. And it’s easier to paste a thoughtful link than one-finger type it onto my mobile device on the WordPress app, which is a pain in the ass to use for typed posts.
Here’s a link I’m sure you’ll appreciate, which reflects my opinion of ‘what the fuck is going on in the friendly skies.’
https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/united-airlines-pilot-and-copilot-fired-for-having-loud-sex-together-during-flight/
“And it’s easier to paste a thoughtful link ”
Then you have failed.
I read Mattis’s letter. I think he sincerely beleives what he says.
I have read a few other arguments for remaining.
I have not read anything that offers facts, rather than fears.
That it not implicitly based on the presumption that the world would go to hell if US military might was not permanently deplyed all over to thwart that.
There are no facts, logic reason to support those appeals to emotion.
Trump did what he promised he would do, and is leaving.
I am unaware of any actual broken promises – to the kurds or anyone else.
Certainly none were made publicly.
This is another reason that this should all occur in congress.
If as an example the Obama administration made secret or implied promises to the kurds or anyone else – then the broken promise is Obama’s, not Trumps.
Our presidents should not be making promises that bind the country and particularly future presidents, absent the consent of congress.
Tom is worried.
You should be too.
Decades of Decline to follow President Shithead’s departure (hopefully soon).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/12/23/james-mattis-defense-resignation-donald-trump-afghanistan-syria-troops-column/2401206002/
If decacdes of decline means that the world quits counting on americans to arbitrate every dispute in the world with our military and might be forced to solve their own problems – I am all for that.
Ron, speaking for myself I do not know what to do in Syria. I doubt if any private citizen knows how to approach Syria any more than they know how to run a nuclear reactor or fly a jumbo jet.. That’s why someone like mattis spends a long carrer training. Private citizens know they cannot fly a jumbo jet, they only board one because they believe it is being flown by a trained pilot. Today our country has been thrown into chaos because instead of having a POTUS who knows that he is not omnipotent and needs to use the judgement of trained experts we whave a narcissist imbecile who wants to run everything based on his instinct. That ought to frighten any rational person.
Roby, I agree that private citizens may not have an answer, but that does not preclude us from having an opinion and debating those opinions.
But remember, Johnson relied on “experts” with the Viet Nam war. We were told that if the communist took over that country, that all of southeast Asia would be taken over by the the communist. And even Australia would be threatened. How’ed that work out while we were there and after we left?
Bush 41 relied on “experts” and invaded Iraq in an effort to stop weapons of mass destruction and bring democracy to the middle east. How’ed that work out?
And I could include Afghanistan in this list where “experts” advised Presidents on what to do when our first (and only reason) to be there to start with was to find OBL. How has that worked out over the past 17 years?
When experts are continually wrong (in my opinion), what makes them “experts”?
Agree with your analysis.
I’d like to be out of Syria and Afghanistan, but not by a reckless, unilateral, sudden withdrawal that frightenly jeopardizes the Kurds, harms the Israelis, insults other allies who fought alongside us who were not consulted, and surely and certainly aids Russia, Turkey, Iran.
Using your airline analogy, it’s like a pilot flying a passenger flight, tanks full of gas, clear weather, and no instrument warnings, after hearing a Fox News investigative report on Airport safety impulsively decides to land the plane on a freeway filled with traffic…
Using your airplane analogy.
Mattis is arguing that having landed the plane at its desitnation, rather than taxi to the gate and discharge the pasengers the pilot should take off again and circle for a few days – because he heard an MSNBC report than airports are scary places.
A clever idiot surrounds himself with clever people that know how to run nuclear reactors, financial, and all other matters. A stupid idiot surrounds himself with playmates that know how to please him.
Someone who surrounds themselves with the people necescary to accomplish their goals is BY DEFINITION smart, not a “clever idiot.”
The ultimate measure is success. Thus far Trump has succeeded.
“I doubt if any private citizen knows how to approach Syria any more than they know how to run a nuclear reactor or fly a jumbo jet.. ”
If you expect americans to send their sons and daughters to fight and kill and die in foreign lands, then you damn well better be able to explain to them why.
“That’s why someone like mattis spends a long carrer training”
No that is not what the military Trains for.
“War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.”
Clauswitz.
I can asure you Mattis is very familiar with Clauswitz.
War is about politics. The military trains to FIGHT wars. Not to decide policy.
Why we are in Syria, and when we should leave is a POLITICAL question, not a military one.
“Today our country has been thrown into chaos because instead of having a POTUS who knows that he is not omnipotent and needs to use the judgement of trained experts we whave a narcissist imbecile who wants to run everything based on his instinct. That ought to frighten any rational person.”
If what you write is true – it should be easy to explain convincingly why we must stay.
I am really not interested in this garbage that we should send our sons and daughters to fight, kill and die in other countries based on the secret knowledge of purported experts we should trust for some unexplained reasons.
Isolationism is every bit as well meaning as socialism. Like socialism, it doesn’t work. So, no one wants to be called isolationist.rebrand time! Non intervention ist! In other words libertarian. Rand Paul is as happy as putin is with Trump’s foreign policy moves. I sure am not.this certainly is not the eliminate isis by being serious, not like that wimp Obama that trump ran on.is trump really providing the foreign policy his voters expected? Trump just lost the popular vote by eight points. He has no mandate to cause his chaos. It’s is no More than 25percent who support Trump’s chaos. He must be stopped.
Roby, to fix the Syrian problem and to stop Trump from pulling troops, the fix is VERY VERY EASY!
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution
Had the US stayed out of WWI it is extremely unlikely there ever would have been a WWII.
I would strongly suggest reading “The guns of August” or pretty much anything about WWII.
Though he intended otherwise Wilsons abandonment of US isolationism is responsible for tipping the balance at the end of WWII and sowing the seeds that resulted in Hitler.
Ludendorf’s final offensive failed. Germany had no more reserves, their economy was coming apart and could not last another year. The French and british had held – just barely but were only slightly better off than the germans. They did not have the resources to counter attack. Peace negotiations were inevitable – on far better terms.
While I am not an isolationist, the claim that isolationism is a proven failure like socialism is FALSE. Socialism has failed everytime it has been tried.
The US was isolationist through to WWI – and that did not fail. Most of the nations of the world are isolationist – and that has not failed.
The claim that isolationism is a proven failure is FALSE.
That does not make it the right choice – there is plenty of room to debate whether something else is better.
Non-interventionism comes in myriads of forms. None of them are the same as isolationism.
While the largest political group of non-interventionists today are libertarian, libertarians are NOT inherently non-interventionist.
Rand Paul may be happy, but so are Andrew McCarthy, Andrew Sullivan, Keith Kellog, George Washington, and Dwight Eisenhower.
In fact Candidate Obama would have been happy, though president Obama was not.
Yes, Trump is providing the foreign policy his voters expected.
Read the GOP platform, go listen to the GOP debates
NO REPUBLICAN except Graham was arguing a neocon position.
Every other republican was some form of non-interventionist.
This is not about a “mandate”.
A mandate is a broad concensus that government power should be expanded.
It does not even require a minority to reduce the power of government.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would no more be justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
The GOP adults had better figure out and fast how not to go down in history owning the mistakes of trumpism. As of the moment the GOP owns Trump’s consequences.
Roby, now this I agree with you 100%. Every president makes mistakes, so it is just a matter of what people believe are mistakes of each administration.
“As of the moment the GOP owns Trump’s consequences.” And if the GOP finds these to be unacceptable consequences, then the leadership of the party needs to do two things. Find an alternative candidate that has a good chance to defeat Trump in the primaries and close the primaries to GOP voters so the GOP chooses their candidate. “Red neck democrats, independents that can not make a decision what party they belong to and other non republicans should not be choosing a “make believe Republican” that has been a member of both parties as well as independent for most of the past 30 years.
I am not a redneck, nor a Democrat. I am an independent that leans strongly
Republican, with both libertarian and populist tendencies. I have never voted in a presidential primary (mostly because NJ’s primary is so late, that the nominee has already been determined.
But, if the GOP is foolish enough to seriously primary a Republican president who has cut taxes, pushed back against illegal Chinese trade policies, renegotiated NAFTA, enforced immigration law (to the extent that it can be enforced these days), re-established our manufacturing base, lowered unemployment, lowered poverty rates, particularly among minorities. established economic growth rates over 3% for the first time in over a decade, and nominated originalist judges to SCOTUS….well, then, to paraphrase Reagan, I will not leave the GOP, the GOP will leave me.
If bad manners and mean tweets are all it takes to turn Republicans against their own president, then I’ll proudly walk away from the party.
Priscilla, Two things.
1. The comments I make is based on my dislike for Trump from the beginning, so I am not one to get turned off to Trump as I was never turned on to him to begin with.
2. If you did not vote in the primary, the youare not included in my rdd heck, democrat….comment.
Again Trump won 22% of the vote in Iowa caucus. 78% of Iowa caucus voters did not want Trump. Trump won right at 35% of New Hampshire. 65% of republicans did not want Trump. Trump won 32% of South Carolina GOP primary voters. 68% of the voters did not want Trump. This does not appear to me to be compelling support for a candidate, hut once the last two was the winning number, other top candidates money dried up. You cant win without the money to buy the votes.
In New Hampshire, 42% of the voters were non declared party voters. Of those Trump carried right at 40%. So out of 285,000 voters, 120,000 were not Republicans. And Trumps share of these voters exceeded the total votes of the individual placing second.
So I will say again, I voted for Rubio in the Primary and Johnson in the national election. I was never and am not today a Trump supporter. Even with some of the good things he has done.
Now wouldnyou be willing to share who you would have supported in the primary had it been when all the candidates were included.
I was a Rubio supporter. After he dropped out, I didn’t care for any of the remaining 3 (Cruz, Trump, Kasich). I believed that Trump would be too liberal, and I was turned off by his personality. Cruz, I also didn’t like, although he seemed the best of the 3. Kasich seemed completely delusional for staying in the race, especially since he insisted that he wasn’t angling to be VP. He barely won his own state ( although, better than Rubio, who didn’t even win Florida ). Even after it was over, and Trump was the nominee, I wondered if he would govern as a Republican. In retrospect, I realize that it was his anti-establishment positions on trade and immigration that helped him win. But most of all, the fact that he ran against Hillary, possibly the worst candidate ever. Any way, Merry Christmas to you, Ron, and to all of the other TNM’ers! 🌲🎅🏻
Cruz, Carson, Fiorona, Rubio or Paul would have been OK in no particular order.
Or Jindahl and Walker who withdrew early.
Frankly the entire field was excellent.
So change the rules.
Trump is getting re-elected.
Barring an economic meltdown.
The GOP will own the consequences of Trump.
Thus far those consequences are on net fairly positive.
The big negative is that the left is about to explode daily.
Ominous foreboding is not reality.
“The GOP adults had better figure out and fast how not to go down in history owning the mistakes of trumpism. As of the moment the GOP owns Trump’s consequences.”
What is it that the GOP owns ?
At worst things are overall better than most of the past 20 years.
You keep talking about dark clouds in the future – bad things are coming, but you can not even say what bad things.
“Thousands of Iraqi translators who worked for American troops live in fear
Iraqi translators who worked for now-departed American troops live in fear, writes Sarah Mustafa in Baghdad”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/thousands-of-iraqi-translators-who-worked-for-american-troops-live-in-fear
“But there was a terrible cost for the work I did. In early 2008, Shiite militiamen gunned down my husband in a drive-by shooting. I heard from an informant later that it was a revenge attack designed to punish me for working with the Americans. The informant said he saw the assailants bragging and celebrating. From that point on, I resolved to leave Iraq with my boys and obtain asylum in the United States. But three years after the shooting, I’m still here in Iraq, still waiting for American authorities to approve my application.”
If I am a soldier in harm’s way in some foreign place, I would not count on the translators and guides to be as loyal as the previous ones we have rejected from our haven, the U.S., Mr. Trump.
dduck, that article is from 12-28-2011. Pleaee explain.
Nothing has changed. We still, even more, reject these brave helpers.
“Afghans, Iraqis who put lives on line for U.S. military are left in limbo for visa protection”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/1/visa-wait-long-iraqis-afghans-who-help-us-military/
Because it is about Obama.
Regardless,
If you take a job with US forces, you are either:
Hoping to serve your country.
Hoping to make money
Hoping for a VISA to the US,.
Regardless you are gambling. The risk is yours.
I think it is good plicy for the US to prioritize visa for those who help us.
But it is not a moral requirement.
Ask the Montanyards how well helping US forces worked out.
So you are saying that Obama failed to make an explict public promise to those Translators and others who helped us and get congressional approval to protect them ?
And because of that the US must remain until the last translator dies ?
“Why The Number Of U.S. Visas Being Granted To Afghan And Iraqi Allies Are Down”
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/641706119/why-the-number-of-u-s-visas-being-granted-to-afghan-and-iraqi-allies-are-down
Or maybe the numbers dropped because we have been reducing forces for over a decade and need less and less interpreters.
Regardless, if the US government made promises – we should keep them.
So where is the promise – is there a statute ? Some executive order ?
If you work for the US and you make a promise that you do not have the authority to make and someone else is screwed – YOU are morally responsible, not the government.
President Stupid On Display
Did you listen to the video ?
Clearly he was responding the the callers remarks.
Really? You heard the 7 year old’s remark that elicited Trump’s response on the video? Tell me, what did the kid say?
BTW, what’s up with Trump’s hair-do In the video? Looks like it was beaten stiff with an Kitchem Aid mixer.
One positive note about the continuing Trump fiasco, it provides me with an unending supply of laughs:
“Just a thought: Which should be considered more “marginal” – believing in Santa at age 7 or not believing in climate change at age 72?” Dan Rather
“Did the president tell you Santa isn’t real? That’s OK. He’s not a real president.” Clay Jones
That is correct – I did not hear the 7 year old – and neither did you.
But we both heard Trump and absent brain death it was OBVIOUS that Trump’s remarks were responding – following rather than leading.
You disagree ? Fine “YOU TELL ME WHAT THE KID SAID”
You are the one making the broad claims based on only half a conversation.
You are the one certain Trump is leading rather than following.
You are the one that is certain you know the entirety of the conversation absent context.
Absent half the conversation.
I would suggest going to listen to some Art Linkletter videos about how conversations with 7 year olds go. Though I think Carol Burnett has a netflix show now doing much the same thing.
“You are the one making the broad claims based on only half a conversation.”
Are you confused, or nutso? Or Trumpo?
You’re the one who did that first.
Liar liar, tongue on fire…
No Jay, you introduced half a conversation and presumed to know the rest.
This is not about Trump. This is about you.
There is no confusion.
And we are back to stupid ad hominem.
Look in the mirror. You are the one who ignored the fact that this was a two way conversation with half missing.
Corrected
“Just a thought: Which should be considered more “marginal” – believing in Santa at age 7 or believing in Catastrophic Global Warming as an adult?”
Are you unable to resist making stupid easily refutable arguments ?
Is reality an alien concept to you ?
CAGW is an intelligence test. If you ware still arguing CAGW in 2018 you are intellectually deficient
All your demonstrating is that Joe Walsh is as capable of tweeting stupid things are Trump.
And worse that even though you whigg out over stupid Trump tweets, that when someone posts a stupid anti-trump tweet you fawn all over it.
I am a huge proponent of free speach.
Twitter is a cesspool.
Very smart people that I respect greatly tweet incredibly stupid things on Twitter.
Stupid and bad speach is the price for free speach.
At the same time there is an expection that SOME people will be able to recognize stupid bad speach and ignore it.
Whether it is from Trump or Joe Walsh.
There is a reason I care far more about what Trump – or anyone else does, than what they say.
Donald Trump and Santa Clause meet:
🙂 Ha, – finally, something we can both enjoy 😉
Excellent
Double excellent.
Santa’s Present 🎁 for Trump
“Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way – not because he went all “mad dog,” which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, “And then what?”
Mattis Fired by Obama 2014
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/did_the_media_care_when_obama_fired_general_mattis.html
There are many things in here.
This is Steele’s testimony in a separate related matter in the UK.
One can argue that Steele might not know what he is testifying to.
Which BTW is something everyone should consider about all of the assorted claims and charges floating around regardless of whose ox is being gored.
Regardless Steele is now testifying that the Dossier was explicitly commissioned for the purpose of challenging the legitimacy of a Trump victory should Hillary lose.
So according to Steele – 9 months before losing to Trump – Clinton was worried about losing to Trump. Before the hacking of the DNC Clinton was worried about losing to Trump.
Before Steele started work Hillary was not merely worried about losing to Trump but already planning to destroy his presidency.
Steele denies that it was a political hit job, but rather an insurance plan against a Trump victory – a phrase that keeps coming up in Strzok’s texts and other places.
What is the difference ?
Honestly – I do not care what Hillaries plans for the Steele Dossier were.
What matters is that the FBI/DOJ bought it.
There is a recent interview of I beleive David Brock who points out that Comey is flat out not credible when he claims that he did not know the Dossier came from the Clinton campaign.
That Comey and McCabe have destroyed the FBI’s reputation for impartiality, and independence, and being divorced from the politics. That the disparatity between the handling of Clinton and her staff and the Trump campaign makes clear that the FBI is incapable of blindly and equally applying the law.
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/422592-steeles-curious-comments-suggest-dossier-was-insurance-plan
Yeah, The FBI & Comey were out to get Trump.
That’s why they undermined Clinton’s election with the additional emails being investigated news story right before the election.
And Trump doesn’t lie and exaggerate and distort the truth – daily. I’ve imagined that.
And Trump never promised to release his taxes. I misheard that.
And he never said he’d divest from his business if elected. I must have been high on Jamison’s when that entered my mind.
And no, he didn’t have ongoing business communication with Russians during the campaign or after he was elected. I must have confused him with someone else.
I guess we’re lucky to have him in office, overseeing the decline of America, tweeting comforting words of assurance, as we sink into the swamp of his persona… Because lying to us we’re swallowed in the muck is more comforting than confronting our demise.
Jay,
Were past any doubt regarding the FBI and DOJ, we have texts, emails and now even public remarks.
If Republicans were jumping up and down and shouting “conspiracy” Democrats would be talking about tin foil hat conspiracy theorists – EXCEPT – they have ADMITTED conspiracy.
We have Strzok, Page, and McCabe meeting repeatedly to discuss their “insurance policy” in case Trump wins.
We have Comey McCabe and Yates emailing each other to setup Flynn.
Were past tinfoil hats. This is reality.
No Comey did NOT undermine clintons election.
She should have been indicted – as well as much of her staff. It is that simple.
She lied to congress – multiple times. She lied to the courts. But that was pretty common under Obama. Clapper admitted openly to lying to congress. Yet somehow you think Flynn’s ommissions to the FBI – which we are not even sure occured because the 302’s do not cite what Flynn said (or did not)
It is not undermining her to subject her to LESS consequences than she should have faced
Had Comey done his job properly – the Democrats would have gone with someone besides Clinton.
Regardless your own claim is that Comey is corrupt.
BTW were the additional emails “fake” ? I would also suggest that you follow that further.
700K state department emails were discovered on Weiner’s laptop – in AUGUST.
An announcement SHOULD have been made THEN.
The FBI sat on it through to early october – because they were too busy investigating Trump.
We know this from Strzoks texts.
Then Comey claimed that the FBI was able to review 700K emails in somthing like 72 hours using new software.
Turns out there was no “new software”, they actually reviewed about 3500 emails and declared there was no problem.
Judicial Watch has been prying the Clinton emails out drip by drip for something like 4 years now. Turns out there were many thousands of new emails from Weiner’s laptops – ones that had not been preiviously recovered – including many classified and top secret emails.
Do you recall John Deutch ? He was convicted for bringing a laptop containing classified emails to his home. That is all he did. He did not share them with anyone. He was about to go to jail when Bill Clinton commuted his sentence.
At the very least Huma Abedin is guilty of EXACTLY the same thing.
Why no charges ?
You have the oddest view of Comey’s handling of the Clinton mess.
Because he deliberately botched and investigation and let someone he clearly favored and her cronies avoid prosecution – but was unable to do so with sufficient secrecy, that in your mind shows that Comey is not biased ?
Botching a coverup, does not make it not a coverup.
Botching a coverup, does not make the crooks innocent.
As to “october Surprises”, in 1992 Independent counsel Walsh indicted Casper Weinberger on one count of false statements. At the time Bush was gaining on Clinton. Walsh’s indictment stopped the momentum and assured Clinton a narrow victory.
Even Clinton’s attorney Lanny Davis thought the timing was inappropriate and “bizzare” and violated DOJ guidelines.
Comey however had a serious problem. He had previously announced that the Clinton email investigation was closed. He had testified to that in congress and had promised to update congress if that changed.
Comey placed himself between a rock and a hard place.
He should have quietly recomended indictment to the AG, or given the AG’s conflicts asked for a Special Counsel. He should have said NOTHING publicly in July. He should have told congress nothing about an ongoing investigation – though HE declared it closed preventing that. He found himself obligated to disclose to congress that the investigation was re-opened.
BTW the polls show that the announcement had no long term effect. Just as the NBC tapes had no long term effect on Trump.
Both hurt for a few days that is all.
“And Trump doesn’t lie and exaggerate and distort the truth – daily. I’ve imagined that.:
Of course he does, so do most of those you link, so did Obama, so does most of washington, so does the press.
Trying to find the actual truth is extremely difficult.
The fundimental difference regarding Trump is his “style” of exagerating triggers you.
And you respond knee jerk to the slightest hint of inaccuracy on the right while ignoring huge whoppers on the left.
You want to rant about “whataboutism” – except fundimentally that is YOUR problem.
Ron, I, Patricia, most of those you label as Trumpsters – we are looking to restore “the rule of law”.
That is first the same standards for all – left right,
Either we prosecute everyone who lies to the FBI or no one.
Either we prosecute everyone who deliberately or recklessly leaks classified information or no one.
Either we prosecute everyone who violates the logan act or no one.
Either we prosecute everyone who pays to keep things quiet tha might impact a political campaign or no one.
Either we prosecutute everyone who uses russians to get information against a political opponent or no one.
Either we prosecute everyone who benefits from “russian influence” or no one.
and on and on.
The rule of law also requires that we are no merely consistent about prosecuting or not prosecuting the same acts. But that we are consistent about what the law actually is.
Either we read the law broadly ALWAYS or we read it narrowly ALWAYS.
We can not have this nonsense where the prosecution of the law is determined by the ideology of the targets.
If you do not grasp that what occured in the Obama administration is EXCATLY what Nixon HOPED and was unable to do – you are blinded by your own partisanship.
It is well past the point where there are no innocent explanations.
TODAY there is no basis for STARTING an investigation. Every single thing that has been found is either a process crime or unrelated.
We know the FBI was asked to start an investigation of the Trump campaign in late december 2015. We know that Obama personally was updated twice a week.
Neither the federal government nor the president – not Trump not Obama get to open an investigation because they want to. We do not investigate people. We investigate crimes.
The use of the power of government to investigate people without a credible allegation of an underlying crime is the pinacle of political corruption.
Whether it is IRSGATE or Obama going after journalists, or the investigation of the trump campaign – this is ALL criminal, it is all abuse of power.
These are criminal ACTS!
Yet you do not care.
But you absolutely whig out at everything says.
Are you saying that Trump can sic the IRS on left leaning political groups ?
That he can get warrants to surveil journalists he does not like ?
That he can have FBI/DOJ/CIA investigate whoever runs against him in 2020 ?
Are you saying that you will sit quietly should that happen ?
We here you rant constantly about Trump threatening – such as his threats against journalists.
I have zero problems with Trump yanking Acosta’s press credentials for misconduct.
But I have problems with Trump remarking that “someone should do something” about journalists. Fortunately he has not acted on those veiled threats.
Obama did not threaten – but he did act.
Yesterday Trump Lying to American Troops in Iraq:
“You haven’t gotten a raise in more than ten years. More than ten years. And we got you a big one. I got you a big one… you had plenty of people that came up and said, you know, we can make it smaller. …I said no. Make it ten percent. Make it more than ten percent. Because it’s been a long time.”
FACT: The military has received a pay increase each year except for ’83 (a technical glitch).
FACT: it wasn’t raised 10% – During Lying Donnie’s tenure, It was raised 2.8% and 2.6%.
FACT: You’re a blabbermouth Trump enabler.
I can not get the actual facts on Trump’s raise – and I do not trust your data – or that of WaPo either.
But from 1973 through to the present military Pay has not been raised.
It has been tied to a COLA through to the present.
Any increase in Pay that Trump delivered beyond the COLA – which is automatic, would be the first raise since 1973. There was a huge increase in 1973 – but that was because inflation was double digits. It was still a COLA.
So on YOUR first point – either you are lying or you are playing word games.
Regardless, it is NOT Lying for Trump to claim to have given the first ACTUAL pay raise since 1983 (or even 1973).
It gets tiresome to research every single claim you make – and so often you are wrong.
You could try checking your own facts – from primary sources – WaPo is NOT a primary source, but that would be expecting too much.
Ad hominem is virtually never a FACT – so that would be 2 of 3 “FACTS” blatantly wrong.
With one in limbo.
Regardless, you are continuing this “Trump is a liar” garbage.
Let me ask you something – do you think this daily microparsing of Trump’s remarks is going to change anyone’s minds or votes ?
As Salena Zito put it quite aptly – the press and the left take Trump literally, but not seriously. Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally.
We can enumerate the “lies” of prior presidents.
Can you name a single campaign promise Obama delivered on ?
There probably are some – but I doubt you can remember.
I can list many of Trumps. Even those that he has failed to deliver on – such are repeal and replacing PPACA and the wall – no one rational is going to argue that he has not tried vigorously, and that his failure is due to the recalcitrance of the left.
Just to be clear – I have zero problem with the left trying to thwart Trump, nor with the Right trying to thwart a democrat. Particularly where they are opposing further empowering government.
But whether you like it or not – Trump is CREDIBLE – and that is the real problem you have with him.
I have no idea how long this partial shutdown will continue.
Maybe Trump will cave. Maybe Schumer will.
I am not sure it matters as the damage will be mostly to the left.
Something like 80% of americans want the shutdown resolved and are prepared to give Trump the wall to do so.
No matter what happens the only voters Trump is alienating are those who never would have voted for him anyway. And democrats look weak and petty – even if they win.
And again – Trump gains credibility even if he loses.
All this “trump lie of the day” garbage is a stupid and inefectual effort to try to tear down the FACT that Trump is credible – and that is what you are most worrried about, and why he is likely to get reelected.
I have no idea whether Trump did or did not say many of the things you say he did.
Nor do I care. Something is not a promise – because you take it as one.
Trumps veracity is judged by those who voted for him – no so much you and I.
I never expected Trump to release his taxes. It he promised that it was a mistake.
The press is unable to understand them. They could not understand mine.
Trump has “divested” himself of his businesses. He holds no position within any of the Trump businesses. He remains a stockholder that is all.
That he did not meet YOUR requirement for divesting – is something you can take up in 2020. Not that you voted for him anyway.
As to “Russians” – there is absolutely no evidence at all of any kind of contact between Trump or his campaign and the russian govenrment during the election.
Not that it would be improper to do so.
Trump did fly to Mexico and meet with the mexican president during the campaign.
Absolutely there were a bunch of people – mostly americans, some of russian ancestory, who made weak attempts to setup a meeting with Putin during the election.
There is no evidence that anyone in the russian govenrment actually sought that, nor evidence that the Trump campaign ever responded favorably.
Cohen emailing Sater who may have emailed someone in Moscow about Trump Tower long after DJR gave up, is not “conspiring with the Russians”.
The Podestas litterally own tens of millions of dollars of russian companies.
Do you honestly think no one in the Clinton campaign ever emailed or spoke to someone who could not be called “russian”.
This is just more of your language garbage.
BTW Trump PUBLICLY called on Putin to release Clinton’s lost emails many many times.
There was no secret during the campaign of Trump’s views of Putin.
No one has ever denied that.
Do you have evidence that Trump or anyone officially tied to the campaign communicated with anyone actually from the russian government about the election ?
There is NOTHING.
Sater is not “russia” Mifsud is not “Russia”, Natalia is not “Russia”, Assange is not “russia”.
Some russian pop star is not “russia”.
Trump never denied having business is Russia – the man ran the miss universe contest in Moscow. Grow up. Do you think after the contest was over he never talked with anyone associated with it ever again ?
Is it a crime to try to build a Trump Tower in moscow ?
One of the problems with this “trump lies” garbage, is that it depends on being beyond literal.
I am not sure precisely what Trump said. But no one sane thought he meant I never had any contact of any kind with anyone having anything at all to do with Russia ever.
We can argue over whether whatever Cohen did in June of 2016 was – mostly we have Cohen and Sater – and FBI informant, US citizen of Russian birth emailing each other.
I am not sure how it is that Trump is lying when Cohen is acting on his own.
Regardless, I do not see how failing to jump start a business deal is political campaign collusion with Russia.
Trump is not cohen.
Business is not politics,
Americans born in Russia (and working for the FBI) are not the Russian Government.
Russian Pop Starts are not the Russian Government
even Natalia is not the russia government – though she falsely claimed to be.
And on an on.
There is still no connection to the actual russian government.
There is still no connection to the campaign.
There is still nothing that is a crime.
There is still nothing improper.
Todate there is not even evidence that Russia actually favored Trump.
James Comey and serveral others in the FBI and DOJ actually rejected the effort of that purported Intelligence committee effort to conclude Putin favored Trump.
Todate it is not even possible to connect Stone and Corsi to Assange – even though Assange is not Russia and Stone and Corsi absolutely wanted to communicate directly with Assange.
We are watching the destruction of failed progressivism.
We are not watching the decline of the country.
As always some things are getting worse and some better, but mostly things are getting better.
Even during Obama mostly things were getting better – just not those having to do with government.
Today much of what is occuring with govenrment is improvement. There is a long way to go, and government is still very F’d up. But atleast slowly headed in the right direction.
We are rolling back harmful regulations. The department of education is getting out of meddling in the affairs of states and colleges,
To be clear – that does not mean that the states and colleges are doing things right, only that the intrusion of the federal government is no improvement.
Meantime, we are complicit in SA’s war crimes against Yemini civilians.
“In the end, we concluded that they were just not willing to listen,” said Tom Malinowski, a former assistant secretary of state and an incoming member of Congress from New Jersey. “They were given specific coordinates of targets that should not be struck and they continued to strike them. That struck me as a willful disregard of advice they were getting.”
Yet American military support for the airstrikes continued.”
This has been going on for at least TWO administrations. Sounds like we are complicit in war crimes, don’t it.
Yemen is in a civil war.
It is one bad side against the other.
An incoming member of congress is NOT a military or civilian advisor to SA.
He is speaking in first person plural about something he did not do, and probably can not know.
Either that or he is speaking as someone who “violated the logan act”.
Oh. My – lets jail him !!!!!
BTW there is no such thing as specific coordinates of targets you should not strike.
Information regarding targets is dynamic. Even the NVA hid SAM’s in/near hospitals.
Targetting decisions must be made at the moment.
That does not mean the Saudi’s are making wise decisions.
But it does mean your congressmen is spouting nonsense.
The Yemeni’s started fighting in the 60’s After 2+ decades of relative peace the civil war resumed during the obama administration.
The US has provided military aid throught the saudi’s to the factions not aligned with Iran.
The Saudis will conquer Yemen before they will allow an Iranian puppet on their flank – just as the US would not allow missles in cuba.
Our aide to SA might be wrong – if so it was wrong before Trump was elected.
I would prefer the US govenrment got out of it, and US defense contractors decided on their own whether to sell to SA or not.
And you could picket them to get them to change their minds.
Of course we are complicit in war crimes – we have been in every military engagement we have had even the smallest role.
That is one of the reasons that Washington told us to mind our own business.
If you want to oppose Trump on this – fine, where were you two years ago ?
Mr. Bone Spurs found a nice safe place to land:
“We’re no longer the suckers, folks,” Trump told U.S. servicemen and women at al-Asad Airbase in western Iraq, about 100 miles or 60 kilometers west of Baghdad. “We’re respected again as a nation.”
So it turns out that Trump should have sent medical units instead of combat troops to the border. Who knew.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/26/us/guatemalan-boy-dies-in-us-custody/
Do you think that dragging a young child thousands of miles in a dirty crowd with poor health conditions for months might have something to do with it ?
Is this some game where after subjecting your child to abuse that would get you jailed in this country, you strike the lottery – and it becomes the responsibility of the CBP to undo the damage you have done ?
I would have ZERO problem with completely turning away immediately any parent with an underage child that attempts to cross illegally. No hearing no nothing.
Even when we had almost no restrictions on immigration we turned away people who were not heatlhy.
Your argument is FOR A WALL.
I do not think a sick 10 year old is getting accross a 30′ wall.
That might make the parent seek care for their child BEFORE they are critical, or not embark on something this dangerous with children.
“Even when we had almost no restrictions on immigration we turned away people who were not heatlhy.”
Different era. Different untreatable diseases. Penicillin wasn’t discovered until the late 1920s and not in general use before the late 1930s. Contagious diseases were a genuine concern before that, and immigration inspectors and the doctors who examined immigrant arrivals at Ellis Island (yes, they were allowed entry into the States) were often overzealous: immigrants were sent back with runny noses, unhealthy looking complexions, cigarette coughs, toe nail fungus.
Get a fucking grip, will you. Agreed, we can’t take in everyone who comes here illegally or otherwise, I’ve clearly stated my views on that before; but we have to face the reality that many of these people are in genuine distress; that it’s against our own moral principles to punish children for the stupidity of their parents. Imagine the jeopardy of your own children if they had to pay for your idiocies.
Your position is illogical, Jay. First you say “we can’t take in everyone who comes here illegally or otherwise,” and then you say that we have to “face the reality that many of these people are in genuine distress.” Literally, billions of people all over the world are in genuine distress, many in much worse distress than many of the illegals that sneak into the US or make phony asylum claims.
So, how would you determine who is allowed in and who isn’t? Particularly, who isn’t, since it seems that you think that anyone who claims to be “in distress” should get in.
“So, how would you determine who is allowed in and who isn’t? Particularly, who isn’t, since it seems that you think that anyone who claims to be “in distress” should get in.”
I never said everyone who claims distress should be let in.
Those who claim distress should be given quick hearings.
During that time, children shouldnt forcefully be separated from parents.
I’m sure you agree…right?
Jay, I wanted to jump in on this one.
I may be a simpleton and have a poor understanding of the issues, but this is my thought.
The way our laws are written causes many of the problems experienced. One comes into the country illegally, gets caught or surrenders and the law requires lockup or catch and release. Release equals “catch me if you can in the future”l
So my thought. If people are in distress, if you ‘re caught, paperwork is filed and then you’re immediately taken back to the border and returned south. Once processed, notification through the USA embassy or other office is communicated as to the final determination on asylum. In addition, there has just been 10 women come across illegally in the past few days, went into labor and now have 10 children who are US citizens. Birthright citizenship for kids of illegals should not exist.
If you did not have the incentive where one stays in the country, regardless of location and you are processed just like someone coming legally, would you not mitigate some of the problems with family separation and incarceration before decisions on amnesty taking place? Sending them back south of the border allows them to live free.
And if Mexico does not like us sending them back on the other side of the border, I believe we have economic decisions to make that would convince them to accept that action. They let the central Americans through their country in the first place.
oK, let’s do what you suggest. If they come through Mexico, and are refused asylum, return them to Mexico, with their children if any.
And economic pressure to reduce Mexican citizens illegally crossing into the US is a good idea as well – frequently suggested in the past, but without serious congressional consideration.
To get those suggestions accomplished, however, will require a President in office with calming hands, not one like Trump who gives Mexico the middle finger.
This is the problem in America today. The f ‘in president does not create legislation.
Congress.does. So my example starts with congress. THEY change immigration law. THEY pass immigration reform. THEY send immigration reform to the president. The president signs or vetos. If veto, THEY override veto. They and ONLY THEY create and pass legislation.
When people in this country one again understand the president is not king or a dictator, maybe then they will elect people to congress that will get off their dead ass and start doing something to improve the country.
Good, we are starting to make progress.
I would disagree – mostly as a matter of process.
If you cross illegally and are caught while crossing, you are just returned, no hearing.
If you want assylum – cross at a official checkpoint or go to an embassy or consulate.
To the greatest extent possible you want the “process” or occur OUTSIDE the US.,
You do not want detentions camps in the US.
That does not mean there are no hearings.
I am NOT addressing what are the justifications for asylum.
I do not think the current actual law allows asylum for any reason except persecution by your country(despite what the 9th circuit claims). But I am willing to broaden the law.
But we do that by passing new law.
Illegal immigration from mexico is nearly non-existant today – that is the benefit of rising mexican standards of living.
Those crossing the mexican boarder illegally are coming from poor countries in central america,
Trump already offered to trade Dreamer legislation for the Wall.
Trump is exactly the person you want to negotiate this with.
He has been prepared to make a deal on almost any immigration issue in return for a wall.
Ron
My concern about rules is NOT so much about who to let in and who not to.
I am comfortable with significant increased immigration.
My concern is that we design the rules to eliminate problems.
Requiring that requests for asylum be subitted at US embassies and consultates simplifies border issues.
You get caught crossing at the border where you should not be – you get deported immediately. No hearing, no nothing.
I do not see deportation as punishment – atleast not for those apprehended while crossing.
The issue of birth right citizenship mostly disapears if you deport immediately.
I am very reluctant to abandon brith right citizenship – even for the children of illegal immigrants. The problem can be dealt with other ways.
Next you must assume that whatever rules we make – those trying to get in will game the rules. I would if I were them.
Exactly what I said. We agree 100%
“I never said everyone who claims distress should be let in.”
In fact despite claims otherwise – you really have never said much of anything beyond “Argh! Trump!”
Absent criteria – hearings are meaningless.
WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA ?
The rule of law means – actually having laws – not allowing magistrates to decide based on their guts.
I am not sure I have a problem immediately deporting someone apprehended crossing illegally at the border or quite near.
Returning you to the other side is not “punishment” it is not a violation of your rights.
Even should CBP make errors – the hardship is small – get to an actual checkpoint and correct the problem.
I do not have a problem with saying if you are claiming asylum – or a hardship justification – that you cross at a checkpoint, and that you make your claim FIRST – we have embassies and consulates throughout the world.
For the most part “hearings” of the type we mostly have now, should be for those caught in the US illegally but far from the borders.
I would suggest we distinguish between the criteria for legal immigration and that for citizenship. They are not the same.
I do not as an example see any need for special rules for citizenship for dreamers.
But I am inclined to allow those for came before some young age to remain.
At the same time – I do not like deporting people for petty offenses – like marijuana possession.
I also think that anyone who serves in the US military, should not ever be deported.
I do not however think going to college should automatically qualifiy you for anything.
Because of a “crisis” at the border, Obama decided to relax the rules on unaccompanied minors. Within 6 weeks the number of unaccompanied minors at the border increased almost 10 fold.
The law on asylum requires a genuine fear from your own government.
It does not allow for sexual orientation, gender, race, or domestic abuse claims.
Or it did not until AGAIN Obama expanded the scope – contrary tot he law, and again the numbers claiming domestic violence skyrocketed.
I would prefer few rules. I would prefer actual open borders. But that requires radical changes to government that we are just not going to do.
If we are not going to have open borders we must have limits.
I do not personally care if we allow people making domestic violence claims in.
But if you have something lots of people want – into the US, and there are limits to who qualifies, you are nuts not to expect those trying to get in to claim they meet the qualifications. If I were from Guatemala I would be claiming domestic violence or whatever it took to get in.
I do not blame immigrants for trying to game our rules.
One thing I would suggest that would clarify things for Jay would be to agree to a fixed limit.
I do not care what that limit is.
Limits provide clarity. No matter what limit you set – the higher the limit the more disruptive to the US – particularly to poor citizens. The lower the limit – the more difficult choices you will have to make.
You are right – science medicine and technology have changed.
But ethics, morality, the golden rule, fundimental principles have not.
Law should be timeless – if it is not – it was badly written in the first place.
There is no different era reason that free speach is no longer worth protecting.
Today, a century ago – the golden rule was the same. The distiction between coerced collective chartiy and individual charity was the same.
There was not now and is not then a right to entry.
As I have noted repeatedly – there are 750M people accross the globe who want to come to the US – if merely 1% manage to absent massive societal changes there will be catastrophe.
Either you must change the framework of government such that you eliminate all positive rights, all collective duties, or you must limit immigration.
I would prefer you did the former – but no one is having that discussion.
QED we must discuss limits to immigration.
What do you propose ? 500K/year ? 1M ? 5M ? 10M ?
Where from ?
Either actually stake your claim for open borders – clearly and accept the changes that entails, or tell me YOUR criteria for limiting immigration. Because I am tired of this – “we are not for open borders, but there is no restrictions you suport”
That is called hypocracy.
“Agreed, we can’t take in everyone who comes here illegally or otherwise, ”
But I do not think anyone here would accept that you or democrats or the left “agree” to that.
There is a difference between words and actions.
“I’ve clearly stated my views on that before; ”
Is there someone else here who recalls some clear statement from you, some willingness to discuss actual limits of immigraton rules in any other way than the nebulous and meaningless way of this post –
“we can take everyone, ….” But there are so many your heart bleeds for, where is it that you are prepared to make the difficult choices and say NO!. Saying you understand there must be limits but being unwilling to consider any limits is hypocracy.
“but we have to face the reality that many of these people are in genuine distress;”
No more so than 3/4 of the world. Nearly all these people are coming for economic reasons.
Do not get me wrong – I have no problem with that. And I have no problem with the concept of economic distress.
“that it’s against our own moral principles to punish children for the stupidity of their parents.”
We are not punishing them. Everything that is occuring they are aware of up front and they are imposing on themselves.
And yes ultimately parents are responsible for their children – not governments.
When we decide that parents have egregiously stupidly treated their children – then we SEPARATE the children from the parents and find someone else to care for them.
But you have opposed that too.
Would you give a baby back to a crack addict that did not feed it ?
“Imagine the jeopardy of your own children if they had to pay for your idiocies.”
My life has been impacted by my parents choices – both good and bad, and my children’s lives will be impacted by my choices – both good and bad.
That is how the world works. I do not need to “imagine” it – I can just look arround.
My daughter came from an orphange in china that was so much of a shithole that the tore it down immediately after she was adopted rebuilt it and have since torn down and rebuilt the replacement. It was so bad there are no pictures. They would not allow us to visit it – in 1998 90% of the parents who went to china to adopt picked up their child at the orphange. Our daughters was so bad they did not allow that. She is incredibly stubborn – if whe was not she would be dead. Prior to 1998 about 50% of the babies in chinese orphanages DIED.
She had almost no human contact prior to 2. Even from China most kids who are getting adopted are removed from the orphange and placed with “foster families” about 6 months before the adoption. Our daughter was not. It is my beleif that they did not intend to place her for adoption, but they had more demand than expected – and so they placed a child that they did not expect to adopt. I suspect they placed one they expected to die, who did not.
If you are unaware of that in the 70’s 80’s and 90’s chinese orphanages had “dying rooms”.
Where they placed the babies they did not expect to live. They got little contact or care.
Do I cry when I hear of children at the border ? A bit. At the same time I KNOW that they have it far better than my daughter did for her first two years.
Guatemala, Honduras, …. these are impoversished countries.
But they do not compare to much of Africa, or Haiti
Nor do they compare to conditions that nearly all children throughout the world experienced 50 years ago. In fact they are better off than many american children in about half the country in the 40’s 50’s even 60’s.
If we have a moral duty to these children, then we have a moral duty to all the children in shitty conditions throughout the world.
However much sympathy I have for kids with parents crossing the US border with colds, and dehydration, I have much more for kids in war zones, without parents in areas where there is actual starvation.
It is pretty much trivial to find hundreds of thousands of children somewhere in the world who need out help EVEN MORE.
There is no collective duty to help others.
There can not be. Such a duty would be unsustainable.
Any duty is individual, and the degree of that duty is determined by each of us individually.
I give to a number of causes. I also give of my time.
But I am not the “giving tree” I do not give myself entirely to anyone in need.
You are personally free to feel an obligation to these immigrants.
You can try to persuade me – and that would be easy.
But you may not impose that duty on me or anyone else by force.
If you and the left are prepared to have an actual discussion about what the limits to immigration are – we would have passed immigration reform 10 years ago.
I think you would find that Trump is prepared to make enormous concessions regarding immigration law – in return for the wall.
He offered to trade DACA for the wall – and Schumer agreed and then reniged.
As you say, compromise is a tool. And that is a tool the parties do not want to use when it comes to important issues like immigration reform.
We could fix most of the immigration problems and DACA they would come together to “compromise” on their extreme positions that would provide a workable solution to the existing people in the country, as well as future individuals seeking a home in this country.
But neither of the parties are going to give because it is one issue that is going to energize their base and get people voting.
Democrats AND Republicans could care less about the people coming to the border other than using them as a vote getting pawn.
AND DONT BLAME TRUMP. HE DOES NOT WRITE LEGISLATION. HE CAN ONLY SIGN OR VETO AND THEN CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are no principles at issue here
There is plenty of room for compromise
Contra jay
Trump is exactly the president to make a deal with
My guess is there is very little in the way of what democrats want on immigration that trump would not give for “the wall”
Wait, wait, we can’t proceed on all those cases, say Trump lawyers.
“Trump lawyers, citing shutdown, ask court for delay in emoluments case ”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/26/trump-lawyers-shutdown-delay-emoluments-case-1075676
So speed it up NY, the Feds are stalling.
The Emoluments cases should have been dismissed at the start, They have already been severely narrowed.
The emoluments clause is about gifts from foreign governments to those in government.
It is not about free exchange – business.
As the left is trying to interpret it, no member of the US govenrment could eat or stay at a hotel in a foreign country – as it might be owned by someone who might be part of a foriegn government.
But lets say you “win” – what do you think will happen ?
The courts could direct Trump’s businesses to divest themselves of all profits from foreign officials during Trump’s presidency – Guess what Trump’s businesses are already doing that.
His DC hotel as an example is sending the IRS voluntary payments of all profits from all sales involving foreign dignataries.
I have no idea what you think you are going to get from this case, but it is never going to be what you want – even if you win.
Right. Defend Trump, for not divesting himself from his business interest’s and accepting quid pro quo paybacks from foreign governments lining his pockets through extravagant bookings at his properties. Good lapdog Dave (pat pat pat).
I am neither defending nor attacking Trump.
I am defending the facts and the constitution.
First – divestment has a meaning – it is litterally the opposite of investment – and almost technically impossible for Trump.
Trump HAS stepped down from all managment positions in any business.
He is a shareholder nothing more – BTW so has everyone in his family who has a role in government.
If Trump moved his investment to other businesses – that would be a change in investment – not divestment. If Trump moved his investment to dollars or treasuries – that would be an investment in government.
If Trump moved his investments to GE or BP – what you perceive as a conflict would still exist.
To actually divest – Trump would have to liquidate every investment and spend it all.
What I am presuming you want is for Trump to put his investments into blind trusts.
So change the constitution.
Have the public debate.
Don’t do this stupidity of trying to claim that some part of the constitution means something RADICALLY different than it ever intended, something RADICALLY different than it says.
This is not defending Trump – this is defending the rule of law.
That is the law and constitution as they are – and the process for modifying them when they prove flawed
Did Obama sell off the rights to his books when he became president ?
Of course not, and he is not required to.
As to your claim that Trump is accepting quirky quid pro quo kickbacks from foreign governments – that is an assertion you need to prove.
So far even Trump’s enterprises – which Trump is no longer managing, and has no role beyond shareholder, are turning over the actual profits of any businesses they do with actual foreign governments to the IRS.
If you have evidence of some quid pro quo kickback – bring it forward. We are all listening.
Thus far I have not heard anything that rises to the same level of suspicion as the activities of the Clinton Foundation or the payments to Bill Clinton.
Regardless, make arguments with facts, logic reason. Not naked assertions.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Reagan
https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness
Government usually makes the problems it seeks to alleviate WORSE
Sometimes yes, sometimes the opposite.
Government in California sure as hell improved the air we breathed.
Government in DC certainly improved the national highway system.
Federal Deposit Insurance a success.
So, overall, have Social Security and Medicade been successful for decades.
The GI Bill provided government college funds for millions of World War II and Korean veterans.
Government patent laws, though sometimes nutty, overall are beneficial; as are government consumer protection oversight for food, drugs, airlines.
NASA has been a boon to the nation; as have been the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and United States Forest Service.
“Government in California sure as hell improved the air we breathed.”
Air and water quality have been improving for over a century – long before any regulation.
In the US both spiked worse briefly as the price we payed to win WWII, and some of the harms continued for a decade after.
But contra your assertion – there is no evidence that government improved our air.
WE IMPROVED OUR AIR.
Rather than look at the OUTSIDE – look inside our homes – where government had no role.
WE switched from burning dung, to coal, and then to oil, and then to electric and gas because they were cleaner. No government involved.
As we become more afluent we can afford better and we demand it.
No law on earth can give us what we can not afford.
Clean water laws in Chaucers England would have been idiocy – the wealth did not exist to pay for them. People would have starved.
“Government in DC certainly improved the national highway system.”
Every major infrastructure program prior tot he brooklyn bridge was private.
The Brooklyn bridge started private – but Boss Tweed had to get his hands on a cut.
WE can and have built excellent infrastructure privately.
“Federal Deposit Insurance a success.”
If it is such a good thing – then it would exist privately.
“So, overall, have Social Security and Medicade been successful for decades.”
You are claiming that two huge ponzi schemes which have us under a dark cloud of 50-100T in unfunded liabilities are a success ?
“The GI Bill provided government college funds for millions of World War II and Korean veterans.”
Or we could have just properly paid Vets and let them nmake their own choices.
“Government patent laws, though sometimes nutty, overall are beneficial;”
Nope. Our founders were dublious but included them anyway.
Even IBM studied patent laws in the 90’s and decided that they would be better off without patent law.
“as are government consumer protection oversight for food, drugs, airlines.”
They have been ? The cost to bring a drug to market is approaching $2B.
That means ANY drug that can not make 2B in profits will never happen.
“NASA has been a boon to the nation;”
They have ? Musk, Allen, Bezos are proving that government is no necescary to explore space.
In the early 21st century a weather satelite over the caribean failed. This reduced the ability to predict huricanes. NOAA had a replacement satelite – but NASA could not find a launch spot for years. The private re-insurance industry raised 500M to build a satelite – NOAA would not let them use theirs, and to launch it. When it looked like that was actually going to happen – NASA found a launch slot.
NASA is just government competing against private business that would do better.
“as have been the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard”
All legitimate functions of govenrment.
“United States Forest Service.” Nope and abject failure.
The constitution does not permit the federal government to own large portions of the country – our founders did that deliberately, They expected the government to sell nearly all the land it held, and through much of the 19th century it did. That is why there are so few and small federal parks in the east and midwest.
But separately the forest service has botched forest management for a century.
You do not have the huge forest fires that occur in the west in most of the rest of the country – because government does not own the forests.
Dear Dumber than Dirt Dave:
Right – the HORRIBLE smog that choaked Los Angeles for decades from auto emission was significantly reduced by improved technology inside the home.
“the HORRIBLE smog that choaked Los Angeles for decades from auto emission was significantly reduced by improved technology inside the home.”
READ.
INDOOR AND OUTDOOR air quality from the 1500’s through the early 20th century was WORSE THAN LA.
All that was corrected without a single regulation.
Londerers agreeing to become indentured servants in the Virginia colony had a life expectance of 33 years. That was almost a decade LONGER than if they stayed in london.
In 1900 in NYC each DAY there was 1,000,000 lbs of Horse Shit and 250,000 gal of horse urine collected.
Steam Engines, factories burning coal, coal furnaces, coal cooking stoves, all made most cities in the WORLD worse than LA in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
It is NOT technology that improves things, it is rising standard of living.
Technology occurs because we are afluent enough to afford it.
Here is NYC in 1926
Dear Ding Dong Dave:
I don’t have time to respond in full: I’m soon leaving to see a Laker’s game (minus LeBron, likely out with abdominal muscle pull – sigh); but as usual you’ve misstated, misrepresented, misunderstood the information you cited.
First and foremost, I presented a CONCRETE example of positive government intervention in California, and you ignored that FACT to dissemble about historical air and environment pollutions in England & NYC.
There was never a smog problem in the 1800s and early 1920s affecting large areas of London or New York City close in proportion to size, intensity or duration to the one in CA I mentioned. In So Cal the smog was far reaching, at times stretching from L.A. to Orange County, and to the coastal cities as well.
Your assertion that the NYC photo you posted shows widespread air pollution is facetiously incorrect. True, there were small pockets of filth and pollution in some city neighborhoods into the 1920s, but they were localized to a few neighborhoods. Blocks away from those places the air was clear and pristine, as it was along the two adjacent rivers that parallel Manhattan. And the haze and garbage from industrial waste in your photo didn’t vanish as a result of the good will of the industries and business who created it: it came as the result of the governmental action that established the NYC Department of Sanitation, a government organization with its own policing enforcement division, and the legal ability to sue, fine, penalize and appropriate assets of those who pollute the city.
And BTW affluence and technology HAVENT SOLVED the continuing pollution of the air from present day animal waste and urine. They’ve made it worse. Excess manure from mega cow and pig farming gives off air pollutants, and is the country’s fastest-growing large source of methane, a greenhouse gas.
“And BTW affluence and technology HAVENT SOLVED the continuing pollution of the air from present day animal waste and urine. They’ve made it worse. Excess manure from mega cow and pig farming gives off air pollutants, and is the country’s fastest-growing large source of methane, a greenhouse gas.”
That is why to solve the problem of climate change, the United States needs to limit the number of chickens, pigs and cattle raised. According to scientist in an article dated September 29, 2017 in The Guardian, “Methane is far more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, capturing more of the sun’s radiative force, but it persists for less time in the atmosphere. Taking that into account, scientists calculate that over a 100-year period the “global-warming potential” of the gas is 28 times greater than for carbon dioxide.”
Methane gas today accounts for 20% of the total expelled gas and the growth in animal production can take this over 30% in a few years. If the impact of methane on global warming is 28 times that of other CO2, then to make any dent in global warming the growth or animal production needs to stop NOW, and significant decreases in the actual production now needs to begin immediately.
Governments need to eliminate any support programs for animal production, controls need to be placed on animal production just as controls are placed on auto emissions, targets on reductions need to be in place to all but eliminate animal production by 2025 and incentives to product more fruits and vegetables need to be put in place so ranchers and farmers producing meat will have a percentage of their current income coming in from other sources. In addition, incentives should be put in place to increase the fish farming in America!
Ron
Please do not buy into this garbage Jay is asserting.
First – CAGW is falsified science,
Human contributions to GHG’s are inconsequential.
Jay is getting hung up on the fallacy of large numbers.
1×10^23 is huge, it is mind bogglingly large.
It is tiny compared to 1×10^27
The effect of human sourced GHG’s on global temps is miniscule.
This is not a problem we should waste any time on.
Methane is a more potent GHG than CO2 –
US CO2 emmissions have dropped from 6,000 million metric tons/yr to 5200 since 2006.
Methane emissions are measured in CO2 metric ton equivalent units – because Methane is so much more potent.
Methane emissions in terms of EFFECT are less than 1% of CO2 emissions.
By volume they are less than 0.025% of CO2.
Further atmospheric CO2 has a half life of 15 years. Methane has a half life of 7 years.
And natural releases of Methane like natural releases of CO2 DWARF those of man.
I would further note that Methane is a fuel.
When you concentrate its release – you make capture and use attractive, and that is what we see.
Government needs to eliminate any support programs for anything.
Picking the winners and losers is NOT the business of government
Government should NOT incentivize ANYTHING.
That is the most certain way to assure that whatever it is will be F’d up.
I have zero problems with fish farming – though I do not understand why you think those are non-poluting.
Animals take in food and produce waste – ALL animals.
Regardless, Fish farming is likely a good thing.
But something being good, does nto make it governments business.
No jay – you did not show a CONCRETE example.
Absolutely CA CONCRETELY did something.
But you can not CONCRETELY show it had an effect.
Anymore than that I can show that European exploreres CONCRETELY caused evolution.
Evolution has been occuring for 4B years.
Humans have been improving the environoment throughout their existance.
Get a clue – the life of man in nature as Hobbes noted is “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”
From the first human the trend has been to transform nature into something more suitable for humans.
AS I noted and you completely ignored “smog” is not endemic to cars. It is a mutable side effect of the use of energy. It has been a problem for humans since lighting fires in caves for heat and cooking also released toxins. Fire makes life simultaneously better and worse.
We have been fighting this battle with the side effects of energy use for 150,000 years.
And we are slowly winning. For most of that time government did not exist.
The air in 16th century london was far worse than anything LA EVER saw.
And it had improved long before LA had a smog problem. They same with NYC.
In fact the automobile – the proximate cause of the problem in LA was ALSO the cure for much worse pollution that preceded it.
All of which occurred WITHOUT government.
GET A CLUE. No amount of regulation can force human living conditions to improve more than we are able to afford. Once we can afford to improve our living conditions – they will improve REGARDLESS of laws – because it is what we want and we can afford it.
FURTHER any law that is not congruent with an already existing human desire to improve their condictions AND the wealth to afford to do so is inherently immoral.
Direct cave men that they may not light fires in caves and you save them from respiratory distress and condemn them to die of cold, starvation or food poisoning.
Direct humans to restrict the emmissions on cars before they can already afford to and already desire to – and you make their lives worse not better.
Any regulation you can ever conceive of that purportedly was effective could only be so – if the change was inevitable. Otherwise you have regulated harm not good.
“There was never a smog problem in the 1800s and early 1920s affecting large areas of London or New York City close in proportion to size, intensity or duration to the one in CA I mentioned. In So Cal the smog was far reaching, at times stretching from L.A. to Orange County, and to the coastal cities as well.”
FALSE. Further had LA had the same population it has today in the 1800’s and used wood or coal to heat and cook, and horses for transportation – as London and NYC did in the 1800’s and 1900’s – and all the way back to the 1500’s then the problem in LA would have been FAR WORSE.
Nor would the problem have been limited to smog. humans concentrations the scale of london and NYC prior to the automobile even discounting the need to heat with wood or coal were horrible for myriads of reasons – not the least of which was that Animals – like horses provided our transportation, and the byproduct of animal transportation was massive quantities of shit and urine when humans congregated densely.
You just do not get it – the Automobile IMPROVED the environment.
But like every improvement for every 10 gains there is one loss.
ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE – as humans raise their standard of living they demand and get better cleaner living conditions. This has occured continuously for 150,000 years of human existance. It has nothing to do with government.
Pretending that somehow CA laws in the past couple of decades have effectuated changes that are part of a relentless trend that has occurred ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE as humans improved their standard of living is laughable.
“Your assertion that the NYC photo you posted shows widespread air pollution is facetiously incorrect. True, there were small pockets of filth and pollution in some city neighborhoods into the 1920s, but they were localized to a few neighborhoods.”
Outside of the urban areas occupied by the wealthy where avenues were incredibly wide and population density low and there were large numbers of large parks ALL cities and urban areas in the WORLD have ALWAYS suffered from worse air pollution than LA today or in 1970.
There are descriptions of the fetid air in London back into the 1300’s.
You can not burn dung, peat wood or at the best coal for heat and cooking and not end up with foul air absolutely some places are worse than others LA is a giant bowl that traps the air – so breezes do not drag the fetid city air out to disapate.
But that is a geographical problem NOT one caused by automobiles.
Further by 1920 the air in NYC had already improved dramatically – cars had replaced horses and coal, oil, and kerosene were replacing wood, dung, and peat, and the problem of copious amounts of horse shit were disappearing.
You have a ludicrously rose colored view of the past.
So lets address some things.
In 1770 Life expectance in the colonies was 35. That was the highest anywhere in the world at the time – though in Europe it was 34. Global life expectance was 29.
Much of this was due to high death rates for infants and children – much of which was due to the dirt squallor and unbreathable air.
The first anti-biotics were available in 1942 – but only to the military. They did not become widespread until 1945. By 1945 life expectace had risen to 65.
That 30 year gain was primarily from environmental improvement – greater cleanliness, as a result of a better understanding of how disease was spread.
Even today in poor countries – the foul air from burning wood, dung, peat and coal is the primary negative impact on life expectance.
You can play games all you want but historically LA air quality was BETTER than most major cities in the world – and even villlages and homes.
Even coal – which is a dirty poluting fuel is superior to wood, dung and peat
The history of fuel has been a history of improving cleanliness and air quality.
Just as coal replaced dirtier precursors, it too was replaced by kerosene and oil and now gas and electric.
The driving force has ALWAYS been cleaner air. Coal is still a cheaper energy source than oil, gas, or electric. We did not shift to gas and electric to save money. We did so to improve our air.
You are under this delusion that our interest in air quality is modern – because modern polution is somehow worse – both assertions are FALSE.
We have been playing a game between the benefits to humans of variious fuels – like wood and peat and the harm to us for 150,000 years., None of this is new.
All that is new is that we can afford better air quality and therefore we have it.
“Blocks away from those places the air was clear and pristine, as it was along the two adjacent rivers that parallel Manhattan. And the haze and garbage from industrial waste in your photo didn’t vanish as a result of the good will of the industries and business who created it:”
The polution of those rivers you cite – as well as the air in cities PREDATES the industrial revolution. The east rivers, the hudson, the thames, the Siene – the great rivers of great cities were open sewers from the time men first settled them.
In london in the 17th and 18th centuries nearly every basement in the entire city and most back yards were full of excrement – sewage, this was dried and used for fuel. People actually bought and sold shit – human shit, horse shit as fuel.
Even modern Beijing – which is NOT an industiral center has had horrible air poolution problems for centuries right up to today.
Partly due to similar geographical issues as LA and then due to the use of coal, dung, and peat as fuel for heat, and cooking.
Massive pollution predates the industrial revolution by all of human history.
Why do you think there were the plauges and epidemics of the middle ages – because the horrible environement was a breading ground for diseases.
For the most part – aside from spikes during WWI and WWII polution DECLINED through the industrial revolution as human standard of living rose.
As alsways the improvements occurred first for those who had the most wealth.
Even your “departments of sanitation” is the cart chasing the horse.
Improvements in sanitation STARTED before government got involved.
Nor was government responsible for the most important improvements.
The single largest improvement in sanitation in the WORLD has been separating domestic animals like horses from close proximity to humans.
Those new your sanitations systems you fawn over did not eliminate the 1M lbs per day of horseshit in NYC in 1900 nor the 250,000Gal/day of horse urine.
The excrement from necescary animals was greater than that of humans and never was part of our domestic sanitation.
Henry Ford more than anyone in the world is responsible for the largest improvement in sanitation and air quality improvement – NOT the dept’s of sanitation you salivagte over.
The very things you blame today – were the improvements of the past.
Just to be clear I am NOT claiming “technology” solved our problems.
I am very specifically claiming that free trade – capitalism and its rising standards of living did.
Technology develops BECAUSE free exchange raises our standard of living.
It is part of a circle of virtue but it is not CAUSAL.
Without free exchange the rate of technological improvement would be incredibly low – as it was through most of human existance.
As to your assertions about mega farms – FALSE!!!!!.
Absolutely the division of labor and specialization results in the concentration of polutants.
But it also results in a NET reduction.
There is a tiny fraction of the animal polution per capita today than that of our founders, or of people living in 1900.
Further – those mega farms – just like those industrial era factories are ultimately the solution – not the problem.
Say’s law tells us that ANYTHING that has a large enough supply – will create a demand.
In 15th and 16th century england – shit became a source of fuel.
The same thing is happening at your mega farms today.
Most modern KFO’s automate the collection of animal excriment and use it to produce methane which is either used for heat or sold for energy.
The result is then sold for fertilizer.
During the industrial era – first factories concentrated waste – and then overtime they looked for ways to make industrial waste into products.
The only times that industrial pollution (as a percent of total production) increased was during wars. Total poluttion sometimes increased briefly – because production increased faster than
the reduction of industrial waste.
But the fact is whether it is a KFO or an industrial era factory, waste production per unit of value produced has gone DOWN pretty much from the very birth of capitalism through to the present
Methane is also a fuel – one used by those very KFO’s that you are ranting about.
And why do you think I give a damn about GHG’s ?
I want to – and I am seeing the use of Methane from KFO’s as fuel – because that increases our standard of living. Because allowing a resource to escape into the atmosphere is stupid.
Not because I give a rats ass about your stupid belif in CAGW.
Politically correct snow sculpting.
It Snowed Last Night..
8:00 am: I made a snowman.
8:10 – A feminist passed by and asked me why I didn’t make a snow woman.
8:15 – I made a snow woman.
8:17 – My feminist neighbour complained about the snow woman’s voluptuous chest saying it objectified snow women everywhere.
8:20 – The gay couple living nearby threw a hissy fit and moaned it could have been two snow men instead.
8:22 – The transgender man..women…person asked why I didn’t just make one snow person with detachable parts.
8:25 – The vegans at the end of the lane complained about the carrot nose, as vegetables are food and not to decorate snow figures with.
8:28 – I was being called a racist because both the snow couple were white.
8:30 – I used food colouring to make one of the snow couple a different shade and be more racially inclusive.
8:37 – Accused of using black face on the snowman………snowpersons.
8:39 – The middle eastern fella across the road demanded the snow woman be covered up .
8:40 – The police arrived saying someone had been offended.
8:42 – The feminist neighbour complained again that the broomstick of the snow woman needed to be removed because it depicted women in a domestic role.
8:43 – The council equality officer arrived and threatened me with eviction.
8:45 – TV news crew from BBC showed up. I was asked if I know the difference between snowmen and snow-women?
I replied “Snowballs” and am now called a sexist.
9:00 – I was on the news as a suspected terrorist, racist, homophobe, and sensibility offender, bent on stirring up trouble during difficult weather.
9:10 – I was asked if I have any accomplices. My children were taken by social services.
9:29 – Far left protesters offended by everything marched down the street demanding for me to be arrested.
9:45 – The boss called and fired me because of the negative association with work that had been all over social media.
10:00 – I cry into my hot chocolate because all I wanted to do was build a snowman…
Ha. Thumbs up 👍
The Swedes just ruled that a “man free” feminist even was sexist and discriminatory and can not ban men.
Really? What kind of weed do they smoke in NM?:
“House Democrat Gail Chasey wants to shake up New Mexico’s voting rights. She said years ago, New Mexico legislators decided to give convicted felons the right to vote after they completed their time and other requirements for the crime.
Now she pre-filed a bill that would allow felony inmates who are currently serving their time to register to vote.
“Should there be punishment for people who are convicted? Absolutely,” said Representative Chasey. “And do they lose some of their rights, yes. They lose their right to move about in society, but the punishment is incarceration.”
“I really question this bill,” said Representative Bill Rehm.
Some house Republicans see problems with the idea.
“Traditionally, there have been penalties for being a felon and we find that constitutionally we’ve always taken the right to vote away from them while they’re a felon,” said Representative Rehm.”
https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/new-bill-would-allow-current-convicted-felons-to-vote/1674236544
Imagine if that law was deemed constitutional by SCOTUS, and office seeking candidates went to prisons to cultivate votes.
This needs a SNL skit!
Nothing new. States rights. Maine and Vermont have had this for some years
The constitution does not say anything about felons voting except for individuals can not be banned from voting due to servitude. Once felons had served their time, voting rights are restored. It says noting about felons serving time not being allowed to vote.
I do not care either way.
You need to print that on your raincoat, ala Mrs. Trump…
Trump makes deception the new norm
Sorry Ron the idea that the POTUS only signs legislation is a joke. The POTUS demands certain things be in or not be in legislation or he will veto.. like the wall .an overly literal view of the Constitution is not helpful.
Roby, I understand that congress cant take a crap without the president saying it is OK. But that is not how it should be. I understand people in America want a government with a “King” or “Near Dictator”. Americans want a President that rules by E.O. and regulates through obscure links from legislation to the rules.
That is not how a Constitutional Federal Republic is designed to operate. And because people have allowed extremes of both parties to hijack how our government was designed to operate. we end up was the cesspool called Washintton D.C. today.
Ron, I for one do not want these good damned imperial president s. You may remember how I felt about Obama’s go it alone approach. But I suspect that it wouldn’t take too much research to find that the POTUS has never been a mere signer of bills. The veto was designed to give the POTUS a voice in bill writing.
Roby, agree 100% and I do remember you saying you did not agree with Obama and the way he was doing things. And yes, the President does have veto power.
But that does not give him unlimited power like congressional party of the president thinks the president should have. They should have a mind of their own, do what they think is good for the country and send it to the president.
Our constitution was established for three basic equal partners. Congress made laws, Judicial ruled on legality of laws and President could sign of veto. Congress, being equal could vote to override the veto by a 2/3rds majority.
For the first 109 years, there was only 206 bills vetoed. For the next 75 years, during which many spending bills for civil war vets, infrastructure spending and other progressive issues began to spring up, 1,982 bills were vetoed, 584 by Grover Cleveland alone and 635 by FDR. Since Kennedy only 374 have been vetoed, with 11% being overridden. This shows that the system works, Cleveland vetoed and a large number were overridden. Since Kennedy, Congress has become the weak step child and is afraid to do anything, thus not passing anything to get vetoed.
Now if there is not enough support for a bill in congress after a veto, then work out a compromise bill between the house, senate and president.
But I want congress to go on record for what they want. I am sick of these idiots getting paid to do nothing other than bitch about Obama (to making him a one term president) or Trump( liar, Impeach and jail ). Its time for them to do their damn jobs. You and I would get fired if we worked like them (or pretended to be working)
But what I want will not happen. Our next president will not be like Trump removing E.O. regulations. Our next president is most likely going to make Obama look like a saint when it comes to E.O.’s. Maybe we just need to amend the constitution and eliminate congress altogether and let the president write legislation instead of E.0’s and have SCOTUS monitor the laws they write. Congress doesnt do a damn thing now, so we would save all that money.
Whatever we may each think of Trump or Obama, can we not all agree that the potential danger posed by the broad use of power by a president are such that the power of the eexcutive should be severely constrained – even if that precludes some good ?
Sounds good – but until the powers restricted are enumerated it’s impossible to know how they would be received
We can start with the constitution as written.
We can do what we have for over 150 years after the constitution was written and interpret it NARROWLY.
We can do what we have MOSTLY with law for thousands of years and interpret it NARROWLY.
Because nothing else works.
And to be especially clear the powers of congress, the powers of the preside ARE enumerated in the constitution. We can start with those.
Let’s start with the Constitution literally as written in the 2nd Amendment
” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
SCOTUS case D.C. v Heller.
Also read about Pennsylvanian state constitution in 1776 and the wording of their constitution, along with others. Seven of the colonies cited provisions protect the right of the people “to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state”; in the other four instances, the protection is for the right “to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”
To liberals that believe they can twist wording to make it fit the liberal agenda, those words mean nothing. To conservatives that believe in the original words of the constitution, those words mean everything. That is why Heller was a 5-4 decision and why it is so important to conservatives that originalist remain in control of the court. The present day liberals in the judicial system are far more dangerous than when the court was controlled by a liberal jurists in the past.
Now, now Ron – you’re becoming absent-minded: or did you intentionally leave out the beginning defining WELL REGULATED MILITIA opening?
And it doesn’t mean ratcrap what earlier State constitutions said, the ORIGINIST words IN the US Constitution clearly provides only a constitutional right to keep arms for that purpose. That’s WHAT IT SAYS CLEARLY. The SCOTUS close decision was an INTERPRETATION after the fact, and was wrong. The Orginist intent was not to allow anyone who wanted arms to own them without supervision – revisionist courts made that elastic interpretation.
You’re turning your back on the clearly stated original words for a revisionist interpretation that needs to be revisited …
In 1789 – and infact though the 19th century, “well regulated” meant something entirely different than you think it does.
Well regulated means – working reliably and in fact means UNhampered by government.
“militia” also meant something entirely different in 1789.
The militia was every white male in the nation over the age of 16.
Finally as noted before the militia clause is the justification clause. It has no legal significance. It is like phrases like “general welfare” in the preamble.
No legal meaning.
And NO JAY that is not what it says clearly. It is quite DEFINITELY not what is says clearly, it is NOT the originalist meaning.
Heller was decided as it was because enormous amounts of scholarship were brought to bear by myriads of different groups to determine the actual original meaning.
And our founders actually had ALOT to say about what was meant.
The earliest supreme court case in is 1875 – while that case found that the 2nd amendment did not prohibit STATE regulation of firearms it found EXPLICITLY that it barred FEDERAL regulation of firearms.
This was a reconstruction case where a souther state tried to restrict the ownership of firearms by blacks.
in 1886 in the 2nd 2nd amendment case SCOTUS explicitly ruled that the 2nd amendment right was an individual right not tied to militias.
The first case permitting federal regulation of firearms did not occur until 1939.
Now the earlier cases were WRONGLY decided – which became relevant in Heller – not because the 2nd amendment as ratified in 1789 restricted the states – it DID NOT.
And the 1875 and 1886 SCOTUS would have been correct but for one thing.
And that would be the 14th amendment
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The 14th amendment priviledges and immunities clause is incredibly important and you should actually read about it. I would suggest Randy Barnetts “Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty”
The 14th amendment privilideges and immunities clause was many things.
One of those – was a direct attack on Dred Scott.
In the decision Taney wrote that granting citizenship to negros would grant them a right to bear arms – which terrified him.
The authors of the amendment EXPLICITLY intended it to extend the right to bear arms to negros.
The 14th amending EXPLICITLY applies to the states.
The warren court used the 14th amendment AS ITS AUTHORS INTENDED to apply the bill of rights to the states.
But the authors of the 14th amendment intended much more.
The priviledges and immunities language was deliberate. They did not intend to just secure rights from intrusion by the state and federal government, They explicitly intend to secure much more than rights. The privildges and immunities language was chosen deliberaty to echo language in the federalist papers and elsewhere at the ratification of the constitution.
The 14th amendment was explicitly intended to reverse the problem that still plagues SCOTUS today – the nonsense that it is our rights that are enumerated and limited and government powers may fill all other space.
The 14th amendment was a bold proclamation not only that the 9th amendment meant what it said, and not only that even states could not infringe on rights, but that government as a whole – including states could not infringe on ANYTHING – whether a right or not that they were not explicitly empowered to do.
We have repeatedly as a nation passed a constitution, as well as multiple amendments that say the power of the government – state and federal is limited, and all else is the domain of individual liberty not to be infringed. And repeatedly SCOTUS has mostly ignored the plain language of the constitution and those amendments.
One of the compelling reasons for the Heller decisions was because the authors of the 14th amendment explictly stated that they intended to extend the right to bear arms to negros, that it was an individual right and the 14th amendment bared not merely federal laws but state ones also.
Jay – before you start pontificating on the original meaning of anything – you should actually go back and read our founders, the federalist papers, the debates over the constitution, the actual discussions of these people over what the 2nd amandment and other amendments in the constitution meant. And while you are at it you should read the same things about the reconstruction amendments.
Because you are just about as wrong as you could possibly be about the original meaning.
You are making the perfect example of why it is the original meaning that matters.
Well Regulated meant something different in 1789 and through the 19th century.
Militia meant something different in 1789 and though the 19th century.
Privilidges and immunities meant something both specific and broad – the phrase is found in both the 14th and article 4 section 2 of the constitution. The 14th amendment deliberately chose that language because its authors meant MORE than just our rights.
They were explictly trying to give new life to the 9th amendment.
They were trying to say – govenrment is limited, and in all else the people are free.
The original meaning of the words is not sacred.
IT is how we interpret all law and constitution – because if the meaning of law changes merely because the meaning of words changes over time – our law essentially has no meaning.
But if we tie law to the original meaning of the words – where meaning has changed over time.
We can rectify our changing wishes as to what the constitution should say – by amending the constitution – then it will be OUR words in OUR time that dictates.
We do not as an example interpret the 27th amendment according to the language of our founders – even though the 27th amendment was submitted allong with 11 other amendments – 10 of which became the bill of rights in 1789. But it was not ratified until 1992
And it is its meaning in 1992 that is relevant – if there are any differences in meaning.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
So lets read it “literally”
The first clause is the “justification” clause – it is an explanation for the amendment.
It has no legal meaning.
If could be written
“Twas brilig and the slithy toves, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
and it would mean the same.
But lets go into the first clause further – our founders and the constitution did not include a standing army. The US military was all able bodied adult males.
In many states every male over the age of 16 was required by law to own a rifle and keep it in good working order. Taken literally as the 18th century public would have understood it, all white men over the age of 16, have the right to bear arms.
“The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”
So quite literally the 2nd amendment bars government infringement on the right to bear arms.
In 1789 as today – the citizens of the united states had more guns than there were people.
Further the Penssylvania rifle was the “assault weapon” of its day. It was a sniper rifle with a range of 300 years – about 3 times what the weapons the british soldiers carried had.
It was used incredibly effectively in new england where the colonial forces fired on british forces from outside the range of the british, and then retreated so that they could reload.
Finally the pensylvania rifle remained in production and use through to near the end of the 19th century it was so effective.
Just to be clear – either we have a constitution that defines the powers of the federal government – the executive and congress, and BOTH those of the left and the right are equally bound to act within those, or we do not – in which case Trump’s actions are much more lawful than Obama’s
The constitution litterally is pretty close to what you wrote.
A literal view of the constitution is ALWAYS required.
Law is NEVER to be taken figuratively.
I actually gave trump credit for finally visiting the troops. Turns out I should have known better. He managed to fuck that up massively. The trump ego cannot be managed. The imbecile, he is further out of control than ever. BTW losing on the wall issue by a very large margin in the polls. Putin is having a great success though. Snovum god tsar putin soon to be King in the middle East as well. If he isn’t already.
LOCK HIM UP!
From YOUR Article – try reading
“The special operators voluntarily participated in this open press event,” the secretary’s public affairs arm stated. “There was no security violation.”
If there had been a violation – it would have been by the Seals themselves.
BTW this is mostly a non-issue. Do you really think that a member of Seal Team 5 in the mideast is not already targeted ? Do you really think that anyone in the US military is not a target ? Do you really think that U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Kyu Lee is going to pass as an arab ?
21% of americans are willing to PRIVATELY contribute to build the wall.
Support for the wall has been trending UP since July not down.
BTW 51% of americans see the migrant caravans as a threat,
Only 41% do not.
I would note that the wall is a symbol, not the issue.
Border security is the issue.
The left is unwilling to discuss it.
The american people are deeply concerned about it.
If you want to believe this is a losing issue for Trump – believe as you like.
I think the vast majority of americans want this worked out.
Of those who oppose “the wall” many do not strongly, and support for a deal that involves giving Trump wall money AND addressing DACA and other reforms is near 80%.
The democrats no wall funding no matter what was a huge political mistake.
To be clear – it was a mistake regardless of what the outcome of this shutdown is.
If Trump does not get a deal before Pelosi takes over – I think this will go a long long time.
It is possible Trump will lose.
I would note Democrats face another problem in 2019.
In 2018 the Republican congress completed nearly the entire budget. There is no Continuing resolution – because Every single budget bill was passed by the house and nearly all by the senate.
What do you think the Odds that Pelosi can match that in 2019 are ?
Dave, we both know that funding bills will not be passed in 2019 like this year. Pelosi will send something to McConnell. McConnell will add some GOP stuff that is a poison pill for Democrats. House rejects senate verson. No compromise. Government shutdown.
WOOHOO!!! Election is coming up. What a campaign issue!!! Good for my candidate, good for my party, good for my career. F’ the country as long as we win!
Ron;
I do not “know” anything regarding how this will end.
My “guess” is that both sides will find a way to end it and “declare victory”.
My “Guess” is that Trump will find a way to get what he wants – without Pelosi and democrats overtly giving it to him.
As and example congress may turn a blind eye to Trump getting the funds from other parts of the budget.
But I am speculating.
What I “know” is this fight serves Trump more than the left.
Oh my. Only Trump can screw up a political ploy and do it so well. See, that’s a compliment.
Wait for it: “Capgate’ is coming.
Question, what idiot, president or not, wears his red tie and black coat on a long flight and then to military bases? Could it be a way to hide his wattles under a closed shirt, or did he do a fund raiser at the base where miraculously red caps appeared out of nowhere. Hmmmm.
You can’t make this stuff up. Do we know any landlords around here?:
“Trump Administration Suggests Furloughed Workers Do Chores for Landlords to Help Pay Rent”
“The U.S. Office of Personnel Management on Thursday tweeted advice to furloughed federal workers on how to explain their precarious financial situation to creditors and landlords—including one sample letter with the suggestion that they offer to perform chores in exchange for rent payments. “I will keep in touch with you to keep you informed about my income status and I would like to discuss with you the possibility of trading my services to perform maintenance (e.g. painting, carpentry work) in exchange for partial rent payments,” one sample letter to a landlord read.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-suggests-furloughed-workers-do-chores-for-landlords-to-help-pay-rent
LMFAO
Yes, those federal employees earning 120K/year on average are going to have trouble paying their rent if they do not get their early January paycheck.
Tiny violins.
Dave be careful on your response concerning working on deferred pay.
Yes, I said deferred because even those “non essential” have always been paid in past shutdowns.
And I could care less about the underworked and overpaid in D.C.
However, the border patrol is now working on deferred pay. They make starting $42,000. So the ones we rely on to keep the immigrants from becoming illegals are the ones that are going to be hurt if this thing stretches out.
Little violins for the Washington deferred. Sympathy for the overworked and underpaid. Hopefully if this thing continues and Trump stands his ground until Democrats compromise that home loans and other debtors will understand and give these people a break.
But as always, I expect a folding of tents after Jan 2 with no wall, just some rhetoric about increased border security that means nothing.
I suspect this is one of the reasons for threats to “shut the border down”.
Eventually these people will not keep coming to work on “defered pay”.
If Trump shut the border down and the courts ordered him not to – they would also have to order him to pay the CBP.
Retired four star general Barry McCaffrey spoke out about numerous issues Trump’s actions in Iraq raised. Embarrassing, outrageous, entirely inappropriate were among his adjectives. I don’t know how to link from my cellphone (and don’t want to know how) but anyone can find his thoughts if they are interested. Now, let the so whatting and I don’t caring begin from D and P. Another line of BS is ” nobody cares about these things” The recent election put the lie to that nonsense. Oh well there is always Rasmussen to provide propaganda in the form of phone poll numbers to the delusionals.
Phony, not phone.
This is Fake news and McCaffery should no better.
It is the responsibility of the seals to protect their identities if necescary.
It is not the responsibility of the president to know all the idiosyncratic foibles of each service and unit.
In this instance the Seal Team 5 Chaplin asked for a photo with Trump.
Who is supposed to know whether seals should be photographed or not – Trump or Seals ?
I am not personally sure how effective this “protocol” is.
I am guessing that if I was a Seal I would be avoiding being photographed – as a personal choice.
I do know a friend who worked at the NSA and was military before that.
He would not even take military ID on a flight to europe.
And he would not fly to the mideast – and that was BEFORE 9/11,
So it is dangerous to be idenified as a US soldier in most of the mideast – much less as a seal.
But as with my friend it is the responsibility of individuals to protect themselves.
Not so fast, McLatchy report is in doubt: “Michael Cohen Report Is Based On Third-Hand Information, Reporter Reveals”
https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/28/michael-cohen-prague-mcclatchy/
This is why I am reluctant to jump to conclusions like our friend in California that cuts and paste Twitter crap. Wait until the information has been verified and the courts have made a determination as to guilt or innocence into each alleged crime. If there is one there, then there is abundant time to post articles about the crime and justice being given out.
There are no reporters like Bernstein and Woodward today. No one can keep their paper dry until the stories are verified like they didi.
Are there problems with the pres – absolutely.
Though there have always been problems.
But today there are near infinite sources of information, and biases are pretty much out in the open and you can judge for your self.
There is no doubt as an example that James oKeefe is going after those on the left.
He produces undercover video of his targets and we get to judge them by their own words and actions.
Yet the left is not interested in the words and actions of its own – particularly when uncovered by the likes of okeefe. But breathlessly believes every rumor, ever inuendo, every hint – from anonymous 3rd party sources in NYT or WaPo despite the fact that none of these have ever panned out.
Our problem is not with the press and its biases – it is with our own inability to weigh truth and fallacy.
When we ignore real evidence real facts – because it runs counter to what we want to believe and with believe rumors that fit our ideology, that is not the fault of the press.
Whether it is Fox, Breitbart, NYT or Wapo, the news is delivering to us what we want.
The problem is in ourselves.
Not so slow.. there may be more here than meets the eyeball…
(Not jumping to conclusions when I link something, Ron – just highlighting the views pro or con)
Every couple of months this surfaces again – and is refuted again.
Prepare to be disappointed AGAIN.
As I noted before – the LACK of evidence should itself be damning.
Lets just say that somehow you get evidence that Maybe one of Cohen’s Cell phones ended up in Checklosovakia.
And I do not expect you will ever get that.
Why do you beleive this claim that Cohen paid off hackers ?
It makes no sense. If Trump and Russia were colluding – Why would Trump pay of hackers in the employ of Russia ? According to your own theory Putin is paying millions to IRA to ‘influence” the election – what is a bit more to hackers ?
Also why do hackers need Trumps or anyone else’s money ?
Do you understand the economic model of russian Hackers ?
They get their money by credit card and other financial fraud – about 30B/year.
The hackers PAY Russians – in money and in dirty deeds for political and criminal protection.
IF these hackers were working for Trump or Russian they would not be after money.
The quid pro quo would be protection,
I would further note it makes ZERO sense for them to meet with Trump – if Russia hired them or to deal with Russia if they were working for Trump.
Your entire conspiracy makes no sense.
But then again you think that Trump went to enourmous efforts to “collude” with Russia to accomplish something that he could have done trivially without russia.
Please explain to me in this entire Trump/Russia theory, what Trump gets from Russia that is worth great risk and that he can not with a small amount of money accomplish on his own ?
Russian Social Media Adds are NOT a credible motive for collusion.
No one takes huge risks to badly accomplish what they can do better themselves.
Getting Dirt on Clinton from Natialia – makes sense. And is just as legal for Trump as it is for Clinton.
Colluding t hack the DNC MIGHT makes sense – but the facts and timeline do not work.
Cohen’s alleged trip to Prauge is purportedly in august. Way AFTER the DNC hack.
That is why the theory is that it is a payoff – because otherwise it can not be connected to the DNC. Only an august payoff makes no sense.
but then again we are talking paranoid rantings – why should we expect they make sense.
Oh and all of this requires that the Natalia meeting was just a sham – cover to hide the already existing secret back channel. Otherwise why meet with Natalia, when you already are communicating with Putin ?
Further remember there is thus far no evidence of any of this.
So you are claiming that Trump, Manafort, Page, Papadoulis, Corsi, Stone, and Cohen conspired and engaged in one of the worlds greatest acts of espionage and intrique and left no credible finger prints anywhere ?
You have found that Cohen sent emails regarding Trump Tower Moscow in June 2016 – but you can not find ANYTHING regarding this espionage and collusion ?
Honestly this is a gigantic tinfoil paranoid delusion.
That such an enormous number of people buy this is unbeleivable.
To believe this conspiracy requires beleiving a level of competence on the part of Trump’s people that the CIA can not manage. A level of incompetence on the part of the US government and the press that is beyond anything I beleive. It requires beleiving that all these people really would fall on their swords for Trump – because even though many of them are “cooperating” with Mueller NONE of them are saying anything about this.
So you think think that Cohen would manufacture a story about campaign finance law violations but would deny going to Prague ?
Do you understand this entire Mess the entire Steele Dossier set of claims is so ludicroulsly stupid that it does not even warrant investigation ?
This entire mess is far far stupider than the “birther” claim that Obama was born in Keynya.
I have serious questions about Obama’s birth certificate – even to this day.
But there is still substantial evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and NONE that he was born elsewhere. Nor would it make sense.
The same is true about this entire campaign collusion nonsense.
These Micheal Cohen was in Prague stories have been floating for 2 years – they are in the Steele Dossier.
NO ONE has produced evidence that Cohen was in Prague EVER.
Purportedly a 2nd passport was found in August – how did that story pan out ?
Thus far Cohen has proved to be insufficiently competent to write an NDA.
Do you really think he is up to spycraft so vigorous that Neither Mueller nor the press has ever been able to substantiate this ?
Frankly that goes for the entire Trump campaign.
Do you think that Stone or Corsi or Manafort are cabable of secret meetings with Russians that neither the FBI, not Mueller, nor the press have found evidence of after more than 2 years ?
It is hard to prove a negative – but the whole Trump Russia thing is about as close as you can get.
The concept of Trump colluding with Russia is ludicrouysly stupid at the start – it is all risj bi reward,. But beyond that the left is demanding that we accept that something that makes no sense was done with sophistication and skill beyond that of CIA, by a collection of Trump surogates who have zero skill in those areas. And they did this ridiculously stupid thing without leaveing a clue ?
Score points for Assad and Russia:
“The People’s Protection Units, or Y.P.G., called Friday on the Syrian government to send troops to the city of Manbij to ward off a possible attack by Turkey. The call by the Syrian Kurdish militia was notable in that a United States ally was calling on an enemy of the United States to protect it against another American ally.
The Kurds see Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw troops as a betrayal.”
Neither Russia nor Syria are enemies of the US. Russia is an actual ally – though one we disgree with alot.
Both are other countries with interests that we sometimes share and sometimes diverge from.
If Syria and Russia are sending the YPG aid – that is fine by me.
Far better than US soldiers dying for what ?
Interesting comments and positions on this site.
https://libertarianvindicator.com/
“We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Obstructionist Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall & also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with,” the president tweeted.”
“Nearly a half million people enter the US. each day at various entry points on the southern border, according to a Wilson Center report cited by CBS.
Duncan Wood, director of the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, told CBS MoneyWatch that shutting down the border would cost “hundreds of millions of dollars a day” or “maybe a billion.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/423082-trump-threatens-to-close-southern-border-entirely-if-dems-dont-fund
We shut down airtravel in the US post 9/11.
That cost a small fortune. Do you think that was a mistake ?
Today we are anally probed by the TSA. Do you think that was a mistake ?
I actually think both were mistakes. But I suspect I am close to alone in that.
Trump is engaged in his typical negotiation tactics of bluster and exaggeration.
I do not expect the southern border to be shutdown.
At the same time the argument that it should not be shutdown because doing so might have some cost is hypocritical coming from those who have no problems with all kinds of other restrictions for safety or to achieve their political goals that have enormous costs too.
I would further note that shuttingdown the border will have real costs – which only proves that classical economics is correct. If keynes, or Trump or the left were right about economnics it would have no cost.
I would also suspect the “threat” is as much directed at mexico as elsewhere.
While Trump’s “We will build a wall and mexico will pay for it is not something anyone beleived”. the security of the southern boarder is in both our nations interests.
While Mexico can turn a blind eye to the human traficing, drug smuggling and mass of illegal immigrants crossing the border, the flow of legitimate goods and services and people is of great importance to both countries and mexico does NOT do its share of the task of protecting that.
“We shut down airtravel in the US post 9/11.
That cost a small fortune. Do you think that was a mistake ?
Today we are anally probed by the TSA. Do you think that was a mistake ?
I actually think both were mistakes. But I suspect I am close to alone in that.”
There is no right to fly. You can choose to fly or not. There are alternative means of travel.
I dont fly and only have for two trips for emergency leave and business years ago before 9-11. Most people are comfortable with this situation or would find other ways of travel if they were not. Then with declining business, airlines would rebel and find other alternatives. But air travel business is very healthy, so no changes needed.
Of course there is a right to fly.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]
Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision granting the federal government the power to interfere with a citizen’s right to travel by whatever means they may.
No most people are not comfortable with things.
If you want to find out what people want leave them the freedom to chose for themselves.
We can not tell anything from a choice between bad and worse except which choice most people think is worse. We can not tell what they are comfortable, with.
If you want to know peoples actual preferences only a free market can tell you that.
Change is the constant of the universe.
Further any business that is not changing is dying.
I have no problem if Trump passes the “Wall” contribution plate after he puts in one of his “big” contributions (bigger than the $7.50 the TF gave to the boy scouts) to start the ball rolling. I will give nothing, but the big mouth around here will likely make a large contribution out of his real estate profits. Can we put you down for a thousand, sir?
Please do this quickly Trump supporters, the invasion has already started and the combat troops are unable to stop it without the “Wall”.
There are multiple issues that you are ignoring.
First the wall is FAR more popular than you claim.
I have zero interest in contributing. But over 21M people have claimed they would privately contribute. That is huge. Try getting 21M people to contribute for private medicat coverage for preiexisting conditions.
Next the left CONSTANTLY tells us that if enough people want something – and not even a majority – that government must provide it.
Why is that not true here ?
To be clear I do not buy that argument whether made by the left or the right – but YOU DO, on issues that suit you.
That is not have that works.
When there is no means to distinguish between what you are prepared to have government do by force and what you oppose its doing by force beyond your own emotions – then you are both hypocritical and immoral because you are using force against others without justification.
The fundimental issue is YOUR hypocracy.
Whatever your standards are – they must apply to issues the right wants the same as those the left wants.
However you weight the facts and evidence – you must use the same criteria form those things you oppose as those you support.
To be clear; You are FOR THE WALL, but you are too cheap to contribute.
All talk but NO MONEY.
“To be clear; You are FOR THE WALL, but you are too cheap to contribute.
All talk but NO MONEY.”
No, I am for open borders – and all the assorted changes that would be required to make that work.
But I understand that is politically impossible – neither the right nor the left are prepared to do what it takes to have actual functional open borders.
Short of getting rid of entitlements and other laws that make open borders impossible,
we must have restrictions on immigration, and whatever restrictions we have must be enforced and enforceable.
We can change our minds on what those restriction might be. We can not change our minds on enforcing whatever restrictions we decide on. To do otherwise is lawless.
Though I would note – even with “open borders” I might support a wall.
We can not have people entering wherever they please, I would still support some restrictions on criminals and the sick.
I would further note that ignoring immigration entirely – our drug laws and the lack of border walls are incompatible.
If you are going to accept that government can interfere with voluntary trade – which I do not accept – but you do, then you must make it possible to enforce those restrictions. Having laws you can not enforce is anarchy.
Score one for the left, sanctuary states and leaders who make up their own rules. Read most of this to understand the situation. Sleep well Governor Brown!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6536233/California-arrests-illegal-immigrant-suspect-killed-corporal-Christmas.html
Jay /dduck, you missed this one.
Missed that one, but how about this “exclusive”: Exclusive: Russian Ex-Spy Pressured Manafort Over Debts to an Oligarch”
“When he joined the campaign in the spring of 2016, Manafort was nearly broke. The veteran political consultant had racked up bills worth millions of dollars in luxury real estate, clothing, cars and antiques. According to allegations contained in court records filed in the U.S. and the Cayman Islands, he was also deeply in debt to Boyarkin’s boss, the Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, who was demanding money from Manafort over a failed business deal in Ukraine and other ventures.”
http://time.com/5490169/paul-manafort-victor-boyarkin-debts/
Why are we recycling old news ?
Manaforts financial problems were known by Trump before he was brought on.
Manafort did not start with Trump until June – after the DNC emails were taken, and left withing 6 weeks.
That he owed money to Russian Olegarchs including Deripaska,is also well known.
BTW Oligarchs are NOT the same as the russian govenrment.
If they were Hillary and Bill would be in jail for treason.
Mueller has Manaforts communications.
Including ones from Manafort to other Trump campaign people telling them NOT to touch Russia, or offers to get Trump a meeting with Putin.
Boyarkin blowing off Mueller is telling. I would expect nothing less. Wise people do not sit down with Mueller unless they must. Mueller is not to be trusted.
No one who plays “gotcha” games with interviews is. Probably the biggest mistake that Muellers targets made was presuming that because they had done nothing wrong they should cooperate.
Cooperating with prosecutors who are looking to jack you up is a huge mistake – as many in Trump’s circle have found out.
Will Trump order the deportations of these invaders? : “New Jersey AG has obtained evidence of possible crimes at Trump’s golf club — and Mueller, FBI are involved in probe”
“Morales, a Guatemalan national who is still employed at the club but has stopped going to work, and Diaz, a Costa Rican national who used to work there and has since obtained legal status, are among at least five undocumented housekeepers at the club who allege they were set up with fraudulent documents and subjected to abuse and racial harassment.”
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-fbi-ag-evidence-crimes-trump-golf-20181228-story.html
If you establish that someone in management at this golf club was handing out counterfeit Greencards – prosecute them fully.
But I do not expect that to happen. This story is plausible ONLY if you have never been an employer. Employees provide fake green cards. Employers do not – because they would not need to.
An employer is required to collect an I-9 from each employee – that form requires that the employer verify that they have confirmed the employees eligability to work.
Even an emplyer who was going to cheat would NOT produce a fake green card – that would produce evidence that could ensare them. It is far easier to just lie and say that you saw a green card than to actually produce a conterfeit.
It is not possible to prove what someone else saw.
But there is a more important reason an employer would not produce a fake green card.
Because every employer must report to the SS every quarter the wages and SS# of every employee. A fake SS# is going to get caught within a few months.
Emplyers who hire illegal aliens do NOT collect or produce green cards. They DO NOT report the wages for “illegal aliens”. They pay them off the books under the table.
That is far less dangerous and much harder to prove than trying to produce fake documents for an undocumented worker.
Fake green cards and SS#’s are pretty openly sold. Anyone can get them. The purpose is to FOOL employers.
I have personally tried to get an employee who overstayed his visa a new green card.
I have paid their legal bills. I pretended I did not know about it when My mother and father paid him under the table. I knew at the time how to get “fake green cards”. There is no way I would have touched them.
You can hire undocumented workers – and if you keep them off te books you are likely to get away with it. Trying to document an undocumeted worker with fake documents is guaranteed to get you caught.
Idiots from the left this time: “California organizers cancel Women’s March due to ‘overwhelmingly white’ participants”
https://krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/eureka-local-news/organizers-cancel-womens-march-jan-19-due-to-overwhelmingly-white-participants?fbclid=IwAR2I6ze7geP8KN08i5BQdpr1z-avl6gAuTdQc9wS9MQ2sfeaRX5vTX7Bu_A
Ha ha ha. If you’re familiar with Eureka, CA (I considered moving there at one time) you’d realize the humor in the cancellation. Eureka, and surrounding Humboldt County, would have to bus in multi hundreds of non-white women for a more balanced Woman’s March demographic:
2000 Census data
“The racial makeup of the city was 88.5% White, 1.2% Black or African American, 4.2% Native American, 2.6% Asian, 0.3% Pacific Islander, 2.7% from other races, and 5.10% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino people of any race were 10.8% of the population.”
And like most other California coastal cities, it’s Democratic Blue. But only slightly left of center liberal. Rural farming, fishing, and now legal pot growing businesses fuel the economy. It’s not a socially politically correct community, and has a small-town 1950s era family vibe.
Most likely the March was organized by progressive lefties at nearby Humboldt State University, who, to their dismay, found out they couldn’t find enough minority marchers to color them happy.
Some how this is appropriate.
Orwel’s books are how to manuals for totalitarians.
Those on the left note that Trump’s character resembles that of fictitious totalitarians.
But Trumps ACTIONS not only do not match – they are the opposite of totalitarians.
While the character of those on the left is not so much like totalitarians but their actions are.
Last one. Promise.: “New E.P.A. Plan Could Free Coal Plants to Release More Mercury Into the Air”
“Reworking the mercury rule, which the E.P.A. considers the priciest clean-air regulation ever put forth in terms of annual cost to industry, would represent a victory for the coal industry and in particular for Robert E. Murray, an important former client of Mr. Wheeler’s from his days as a lobbyist. Mr. Murray, the chief executive of Murray Energy Corporation, personally requested the rollback of the mercury rule soon after Mr. Trump took office.”
Yes, getting rid of the new rule would revert us back to the old rule.
That would be so horrible, because well you know billions died under the old rule.
Issac Newton worked heavily with mercury in his labs.
He exposed himself to hundreds of thousands of times more mercury vapors than you would get if you stuck your head in a coal plant smoke stack.
It took decades – but eventually he likely developed mercury poisoning by the time he died at 85.
Wasn’t Newton manic depressive?
Isn’t one of the effects of long-term exposure to methylmercury mental disorder?
Isn’t it true long-term low-dose exposure to methylmercury is more likely to disable then kill?
Isn’t it true that low dose or high dose exposure is harmful?
Aren’t you a yapping long winded recalcitrant?
Do your dogs growl at you?
Water is true is that Newton was subject to doses of mercury probably a million time greater than you would get if you could stick your head into a coal plant stack
As to your questions
Most are likely false
The left has spent decades pushing fake science of zero tolerance – I.e. any dose is to high of any substance they deem harmful
This is junk science
There are very few thing that are not beneficial at one dose and harmful at another
Our efforts to eliminate things that are harmful at some high dose has produced a generation that is fragile
That has the most allergies and autoimmune disorders
That is the consequence of zero tolerance
Humans are anti fragile
As nietche note
Whatever does not kill us makes us stronger
Absent stresses we become weak and fragile
Arsenic will kill you
But in the proper doses it is a medicine
#Beto4Prez
Please save us from another democratic light weight pretty boy.
Yeah, let’s have another term for a fat-jawed big-bellied comb-over incompetent nepotistic lying asshole.
That will be up to voters
Including assessing the credibility of your assertions
Regardless the left has defined the criteria for a president with clinton
You have sold voters “it’s the economy stupid”
If trump continues to deliver on the economy he will be re-elected
By your criteria
Immigration reform and the wall are not mutially exclusive.
I guess the Israelis’ should take down their wall as the wrong symbol.
Isn’t moaning about eminent domain WHILE complaining about public lands self contradictory ?
Private land owners are ASKING for the wall – as they can not make use of their own land, They find themselves woken at night by invaders – sometimes armed and sometimes held hostage, often with their property stolen.
This Rio Grande ?
# US GENERAL on GENERAL IDIOT TRUMP:
NEW: Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal says if asked, he wouldn’t join the Trump administration because “it’s important for me to work for people” who are “basically honest.”
_@MarthaRaddatz_: “Is Trump immoral in your view?”
McChrystal: “I think he is.” _abcn.ws/2QcxDwO_
Mccrystal was releived of command by Obama for unflattering remarks about Biden.
I would also note that Mccrystal “promised” success in afghanistan.
I think that integrity has something to do with keeping promises.
“Funny who is an “extremist” these days.
Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono (Democrats of California and Hawaii, respectively) are challenging the nomination of Brian Buescher to the US District Court for Nebraska because he belongs to a religious organization that takes positions they describe as “extreme.” Which organization?
The Knights of Columbus.Funny who is an “extremist” these days.
Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono (Democrats of California and Hawaii, respectively) are challenging the nomination of Brian Buescher to the US District Court for Nebraska because he belongs to a religious organization that takes positions they describe as “extreme.” Which organization?
Thttps://nypost.com/2018/12/29/are-two-democratic-senators-waging-a-bigoted-campaign-against-catholics/he Knights of Columbus.”
Both Harris and Hironi exemplify the worst of the left.
Does their objection to his K of C membership have anything to do with this?
“As part of their commitment to building a culture of life, the Knights oppose any governmental action or policy that promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide, unjust wars, the death penalty, or other things they consider offenses against life.[99][100][101][102] In their document “Building A Culture of Life,” they state that those “who do not support the legal protection of unborn children, or who advocate the legalization of assisted suicide or euthanasia” cannot be invited to Knights of Columbus events, or have honors bestowed upon them.” Wikipedia
Or this: “Since 2005, the Knights have given at least $14 million to legally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman in the United States.”
As a sitting judge, will his legal views be effected by those K of C views is a reasonable concern for female Democratic legislators.
As president did kenedy’s Catholicism disqualify him as president ?
All judges are always expected to put away their personal views and rule based on the facts, the law and the constitution
I would note that nothing you cited as purportedly disqualifying runs afoul of the constitution
I met JFK.
He had an aura.
Really, I saw it when I was standing across from him on the steps of NYC City Hall. I was one of the editors of my college newspaper, the school located nearby, and we were given prominent space on the steps, directly behind a wooden barricade separating JFK from the excited enthusiastic crowd. I don’t remember much of what he said; I was too busy blinking my eyes, trying to figure out what the hell was causing me to see the glow. After his short speech he exited along the wooden barrier, shaking every third or fourth hand; unfortunately I didn’t get a squeeze.
Back then, running for Prez, Kennedy was taking a lot of flax from anti-Catholics, accusing him of being a Vatican puppet To counteract those charges he made a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, strongly stressing the importance of the separation of church and state. Religion and politics did not mix was the message. The KoC strongly supported Kennedy of course, but didn’t officially endorse him – Reagan was the first to receive an official endorsement. And since then, excellarated in recent years, the Knights have become increasingly politicized, spending millions of dollars on conservative social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Therefore active membership makes public officials fair game for criticism by association, as would membership in the ACLU or NOW, etc be legitimate criticism from Republicans for Progressives.
Of course Kennedy had an aura
So does Beto
Even bill Clinton had one though not of kenedys scale
Hitler had an aura too
An aura is not competence
It is not a qualification for president
You can chose to vote for someone based on aura
I hope most of s don’t
I would note Kennedy was a far greater philanderer
While in the whitehouse
He is also complicit in the assassination of diem
Moronic Insulting President Shithead At It Again.
Trump’s remarks are an insult – they are also true.
How is Trump’s remarks undermining the military more than Obama firing McCrystal, Flynn, ….. pretty much anyone who did not toe the Obama line ?
You had no problems when Obama was pissing over the military.
The press was not running breathless headlines with every anonymous sourced remark purportedly from a disgruntled canned general.
Yet you are celebrating when quite often the very people Obama fired say stupid things about Trump.
Our military foundation is that the military is answerable to civilian leadership – the president specifically. Whether that president is Obama or Trump.
When the military is publicly undermining the president – the problem is the military not the president.
And no our military leaders DO NOT get to determine policy – that is specifically the role of their civilian leaders – the president.
The military does not even get to determine whether its role is to fight terrorism or not, much less whether leaving Syria will make that easier or harder.
They do not get to decide whether Russia or China is the enemy.
When they publicly speak out about policy – THEY ARE WRONG.
When they anonymously undermine civilian authority THEY ARE WRONG.
Trump, Obama makes no difference.
I would remind you of Truman’s firing of MacArthur.
MacArthur was wise enough to understand that old soldiers do not die, they just quietly fade away.
This is a better assessment of truth, Moonie… I mean Davie…
“To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”
-Mitt Romney
When Romney ran for president the left trashed him as greedy immoral and heartless – why are you selling him as a saint now ?
Everything Romney says is aspirational.
I would love a president with good character – NAME ONE ?
Certainly not Bill Clinton.
I did not vote for Bush I specifically because he lied tot eh UN about the Vincenses.
Obama’s public veneer does not create good character.
Separately NO The Presidency DOES NOT shape the character of the nation.
Again I would strongly recomend “The Ugly American”.
It is 60 years old – it knew nothing of current politics.
The fundimental thesis of the book is that “American Exceptionalism” – the light the US raises for the world, The example that the US sets has ZERO, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH to do with our government, that our government was, and is historically a bad actor in the world, and the respect that the US engenders is due to its people and their character NOT our government.
The left and the press are maligning Trump because the Saudi’s likely murder a journalist.
Where were these when the US orchestrated coups in Iran, Chile, South Vietnam and elsewhere ?
Absolutely I am disgusted by much of the foreign conduct of this country – all of which occured BEFORE Trump.
Clinton’s handling of the Balkans and Rwanda was repellent.
By drawing vague red lines and then backing down Clinton did far more damage in the balkans than would have occurred had he allowed he serbs to go wild.
Obama’s handling of Libya and Syria was horrific.
Hillary Clinton specifically and Obama more generally F’d up the Ukraine producing the mess we have now. Once again the US pushing a coup without any concern for the consequences. The Ukrains are owed far more by Clinton and Obama than the US – NOT Trump might owe the Kurds.
Regardless – the president as a Moral leader ? Are you absurd ?
Wilson ? Harding ? FDR ? Eisenhower ? Kennedy ? Johnson ? Nixon ? Clinton ?
Were these Moral leaders ?
Name one of the above that “demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect” ?
Should we aspire tho that ? Absolutely. I would love such a president. but that is not Romney, nor any candidate offered by the left or the right.
I am glad Romney is in the Senate. I am glad that he was not elected president.
“As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit”
FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.
“With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable.”
NOPE. We have been divided before and will be again.
I am hard pressed to think of an occasion in which presidential leadership resolved that.
And the most Glaring example – Lincoln, united the nation by anhilating the opposition.
One of the stupider themes at TNM is this nonsense that Comporomise is a value or worse a principle. It is absolutely not.
You do not compromise on matters of principle.
Few of us would suggest that the Civil war should have been resolved by compromise – though there were many compromises in efforts to forestall it, and even Lincoln was prepared to some compromise to avoid it.
But you do not compromise with actual evil.
For all of Trump’s flaws – he is not actually evil. He is not seeking to use force to abrige the actual rights of others.
Whether you like it or not – freedom, individual liberty is the foundation for ALL morality.
Unjustifiable infringement on liberty is EVIL.
The greatest threat to our nation today is from the left.
Our current amplified polarization STARTED in 2008, and it STARTED with the left moving even further left.
Right or wrong – the right has not moved. They are certainly pretty far tot he left of where they were when I was young.
We spent months here trading Rants about Charlottesville.
There are more Antifa in Portland today than alt-right, neo nazi’s etc. in the entire country.
Yet the left is afraid of a a fascist take over – Absolutely progressive fascism.
“I would love a president with good character – NAME ONE ? … Certainly not Bill Clinton.”
If you actually believe Clinton as president had equal or worse character than Trump you couldn’t discern the difference between an ounce of smelly bacon and a carcass of rotting pig.
You possess the discernment of a clothing store dummy.
Yes, I beleive that a probable rapist, serial sexual harrasser, who lied repeatedly under oath, AND was caught asking others to lie under oath has worse character than Trump.
This is not even a close call.
The fact that you can even ask such a stupid question exposes your own lack of discernment.
I have no problems with criticizing people because of their organization membership
Nor do I have problems criticizing people for stupid criticisms
Guilt by association
Particularly by association to groups that are probably closer to middle america than. The dnc is stupid
But liberty includes the freedom to be stupid
Further guilt by association is a fallacy
When you engage in it it reflects an inability to argue you case
Separation of church and state is one way
KoC can be as political as they wish
Just as green peace can
1954
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party
2018
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the knights of columbus
Prof. Turley is a democrat and a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.
I have only one disagreement with his editiorial – for every single other reason that he cited, he should NOT support the Mueller investigation.
We do not conduct criminal investigations when what we are investigating is not a crime.
That is the defintion of a witch hunt.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/423178-donald-trump-is-completely-transforming-the-democrats
“Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018,” per WashPost fact checker Glenn Kessler.
Oh, OK – that’s an exaggeration. More likely 10 or 12.
Wow
That would be about half that of the Washington post fact checker
Factcheck Org, Politifact, NPR, AP News, NY Times, Toronto News, PBS, and even Fox News – they’re all lying about Trump’s lies – right DumbDumb… from the core of the porous brain contained inside
your block head, you’re a Trumper apologist to the end. Hopefully the end is in sight for him, though I’m sure your assinity will persist unabated.
This mean spirited rant by Trump at an ex military official he himself hired is typical of his disgusting unpresidential mouth, and anyone not loudly speaking out against it is a lump of excretion by default.
So long after retiring McCrystal speaks out about Trump – and When Trump accurately puts him in his place, you pile on Trump.
Where was your full throated defense of McCrystal when Obama FIRED him ?
Make up your mind. If Trump’s remarks about McCrsytal are offensive, Obama firing him is much worse.
In case it slipped anyone’s mind:
As should a ticker displaying the cost of the shutdown because democrats are unwilling to compromise.
I guess Republicans should have run video of Obama saying
If you like your doctor you can keep them
If you like your insurance you can keep it
You do not seem to gather that your opinion on whether an elected officials remark is honest only matters if you did or might vote for them.
Calling Obama a liar – is only effective if it changes Obama voters minds.
Calling Trump a liar – is only effective if it change Trump voters minds.
You epitomize the fake outrage of the left.
Few people – and certainly not the people who elected Trump care about any of the things you are incensed about.
I would also suggest you stop and consider the standard you are trying to impose.
By any rational measure Trump has kept more campaign promises than any president in my life time, and is striving to keep many more.
Sometimes ones I wished he would not keep.
If we are going to go to full throated maximal outrage mode over Trump’s misstatements, what standard will apply to the promises of the next democrat ?
These insiders who have spent time up close with Trump are warning you how unsuited he is to be president, but you’ll keeping doing your rationalization soft shoe dance as the nation’s moral center dissolves underfoot.
If these are insiders – that is a problem.
The military should NEVER be political insiders.
As best as I can tell – everything they are critizing Trump about is policy.
That is NOT the role of the military. That is specifically the role of the civilian govenrment – the president.
I for one am quite glad we are leaving Syria – and I am far from alone.
I fully expect that will go badly.
I also expected that staying would go badly.
We are not going to end world terrorism – and definitely not by military action.
I wish that Trump had rejected the counsel of “the generals” regarding afghanistan” 9 months ago.
It would be interesting to here you ranting how evil Trump was for leaving afghanistan – when Obama in 2008 promised to do so in 90 days. a decade later we are still in afghanistan.
At great cost in blood and treasure and with no benefit.
The war in afghanistan TODAY costs more per MONTH than Trump is asking for the wall for 1 year. It costs twice as much per year as Trump’s maximum cost for the whole wall.
If I was upset over the cost of the wall. I would be ballistic over the cost of afghanistan.
So why aren’t you ?
# @JakeTapper
Retired four-star Admiral William McRaven, the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014 (which included the OBL mission), just issued the following statement to CNN in response to POTUS attacking GEN McChrystal on twitter:
“Stan McChrystal is one of the great generals of this generation and the finest officer I ever served with. He is a deep strategic thinker, tactically brilliant, with unparalleled personal courage. His leadership of special operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan unquestionably saved the lives of thousands of American and allied troops, as well as countless civilians. No general I know has given more in the service of this country.”
It’s unfathomable that pro military Republicans are not rising up in anger at Trump’s disrespectful tweets. Oh, right – it has become a party of hypocrites.
Where was McRaven and where were you when Obama FIRED McChrystal ?
If every assertion of McRaven is correct – then Trump’s treatment of McChrystal pales compared to Obama.
What McRaven is saying is that Obama fired one of our greatest strategic thinks and deprived the nation of his skills at a time they were desparately needed.
How is that not far more offensive than Trumps ACCURATE tweet ?
Only a left wing nut thinks the truth is disrespectful.
What is inappropriate is all these in the military speaking out about policy,
While there is more latitude for retired generals – they should still take McArthur’s advice and fade away.
2019- the Year of Trump Public Comeuppance.
It is unwise to celebrate winning a war while you are losing the battles.
When criminals are faced with their criminality they’re willing to commit even more crimes to evade the reckoning…
“When the indictments come down”
And when they don’t ?
We have heard this promise for years. Sure seems like a LIE to me.
“Trump won’t play by the rules.”
I can make a long list of LAWS Clinton broke.
I can make a long list of rules Obama and democrats broke.
I can make a long list of rules and laws that Mueller broke,
Please name a rule or law Trump has broken so far ?
“He’ll seek to delegitimize those rules.”
Absolutely he will as he already has attack and deligitimize the fake rules that the left continues to pretend are the real ones.
There is nothing wrong with that.
“He’ll seek to delegitimize our legal institutions.”
They have done that to themselves entirely without Trump’s help.
They did so BEFORE Trump was elected and they continue to do so.
Legitimacy must be earned – daily.
“He’ll seek to destroy the edifice of law in order to save himself.”
Correction – the ediface of lawlessness.
Thus far not only has Trump played by the rules – he has done more than play by the rules.
Clinton fought Starr tooth and nail. Asserted every privilidge in the book, and manufactured many from thin air. He lied under oath, he fought every subpeona.
Trump has done nothing beyond Rail about this witch hunt.
He could have legitimately challenged Many of Mueller’s actions.
He could have pardoned all of those involved in the middle of the investigation – as Bush I did. He could have illegitimately challenged all of Mueller’s actions delaying the Mueller investigation for years – as Clinton did.
So you and Brooks assume that Trump is going to behave worse than Clinton – something I am not sure is even possible, based on your certainty that the unlikely things you hope for will materialize ?
Dave, who doesn’t “support” trump, but merely believes he is a great president has spent the time to type out millions of words to defend him. And he will type out millions more before this is over and all for naught. The trump train wreck will play out regardless of how delusional his supporters can make themselves.
“The trump train wreck will play out regardless of how delusional his supporters can make themselves”.
I hope (and pray) I am wrong in my predictions. but I believe:
1. No matter how hard and long the liberal voters bitch and rant about Trump, the winning play for Democrats is to keep up what is going on now.
2. The train wreck is not Trump, the train wreck is the impact he is having on both parties. Train wreck occurs when the impact results in a Warren/Orourke/Booker/ et al presidential administration, bringing with it policies even more liberal than Obama.
One can hope someone like a Biden, even liberal, would arise ad Biden in a sane liberal, knowing you cant give away the store selling your product like the ones I listed.
What policies even more liberal than Obama does O’Roarke support?
Or more liberal than Biden?
You’re just knee-jerking, Ron.
Jay not knee jerk. Sorry this is long, but wanted to document why it is not Knee Jerk.
https://betofortexas.com/issues/
When I read information like this, it is not knee jerk. It is reacting to positions I find unacceptable. Just like most all far left liberal policies.
Unlike are resident ultra Libertarian, I want a moderate from either party to be elected, offer guidance to congress where they adopt more moderate positions on most any issue, but not be a dictator or rule by E.O’s
I dislike Trump a lot personally, both from his idiotic messaging on Twitter to his “holier than thou” attitude toward most issues, but I find his positions on E.O’s where he has reversed most all of Obama’s, his positions where he is forcing congress to make decisions and not ruling by E.O’s and his hard line trade policies refreshing. And his trade policies are going to make some people hurt because you can not reverse decades of inept policies by both parties and achieve more equal trade policies without some months of difficulties.
My positions: I want trade policies where a car comes to America tariff free, one of ours goes there tariff free. We allow technology into this country, they allow technology into their country. I want immigration reform where the border is secured, we offer illegals here a way to stay and offer dreamers a faster path to citizenship. We have a government that proposes and passes a balanced budget amendment that in 10 years the budgets are balanced and stay there. Patents on drugs need to be reduced in length and can not be renewed. Federal law should eliminate any certificate of need laws controlling the provision of and access to healthcare services. Education needs to be returned to the states and the Education department needs to be eliminated. And a host of other things need to be returned to states.
But when I see in this candidate that can become national issues are:
1. Does not support money for private schools, which include charter schools, that is going to hurt minorities just as much as whites. Just look at Florida and the governors race to see how blacks voted when one said they would take away money for charters.
2. Wants to block conceal carry reciprocity. This is a states rights issue. Not a federal issue! The federal government can make it a federal issue by passing legislations and then testing it in SCOTUS. If SCOTUS rules it to be states rights, then they can amend the constitution if it is that important. But right now if California does not want Arizona permit carriers to carry, they don’t have to allow it.
3. Rejoining the Paris Accords. I have commented enough on this piece of crap agreement. If it requires equal treatment of all countries, then fine. But allowing China to continue to increase until 2030 and then not get back down to 2015 or so levels until 2050 is insane. Only allows them continued unfair treatment where further erosion of our manufacturing will take place.
4. Empower the EPA to further control energy. The EPA is already a jack boot agency that has way too much power. Sorry, when farmers can’t plow fields that collect drainage from irrigation and rain due to “wetlands” that is too much power.
5. He supports stronger land use policies in Texas, so he will support stronger land use policies nationally when president. A recent study by Nobel Prize–winning economist Edward Prescott, Kyle Herkenhoff of the University of Minnesota, and Lee Ohanian of the University of California, Los Angeles found that states like California and New York, ones with stricter land use rules, have much more unequal allocation of resources than states that have more relaxed land use rules. That is why the Obama administration opposed many of those rules in CA and NY.
6. Improving ACA by guaranteeing subsidies, both individual and insurance. How much government generated profit for insurance companies is too much? Just look at insurance company profits since the ACA went into effect. One can argue all sorts of information, but facts speak for themselves.
And I could find many other issues I disagree with, but these are more of the major issues.
Now I know a California “moderate” is gong to find these issue acceptable, if not somewhat right of center, but someone like myself looking for a centrist candidate finds these way too far to the left. They take away too many personal rights and places the country in unfair deals.
The problems with Beto are evident from the first paragraph.
The rhetoric is graceful but what is actually being said matters.
The “rule of law” is your chance to succeed. Your Freedom is your chance to succeed.
Everything that government does that is not a justifiable use of force is detrimental to all the things Beto claims to want to deliver.
Someone posted about the Indians – there is what the beneficence of government brings.
Or the VA.
There is no right to a job, or to training. or to healthcare.
Waxing about immigrants should immediately make that obvious.
As is typical of the Left – Beto speaks of how things are seen – not how they are.
What you say matters, what you feel matters, not what you do.
Regardless, if jobs, education, training and healthcare are a right – then immigrants are a burden on society.
Trade is not the business of government.
I can not control other governments – but I can control mine.
If I want to buy a car, a light bulb, a transistor from China – I should have the absolute right to do so – or not, or buy from anyone else that will sell to me.
That right should not depend on your or anyone else’s oppinion on whether that is a good deal. It is MY choice that matters.
At the same time – I have no right to buy from someone who does not want to sell.
I have no right to buy at any price other than the one I and the seller agree to.
It is irrelevant whether the sellor is chinese or from Oklahoma.
If I want to sell something I should have the right to sell to whoever I please. Limited only by the buyer and I coming to an agreement. Your oppinion or that of others is irrelevant.
I should not need your permission to buy anything or sell anything.
Your personal views are only expressed in your own buying and selling choices.
Congradulations on discovering the work of Lee Ohanian.
He has done myriads of papers and work on classical liberal economics.
Top ranked economists in the world
Andrei Shleifer
James J. Heckman
Daron Acemoglu
Joseph E. Stiglitz
Robert J. Barro
Jean Tirole
Peter C. B. Phillips
Kenneth S Rogoff
Gary S. Becker †
Robert E. Lucas Jr.
John Y. Campbell
Eugene F. Fama Sr.
Olivier J Blanchard
David E. Card
Richard Blundell
Thomas J. Sargent
Mark L. Gertler
Robert F. Engle III
Barry Julian Eichengreen
Philippe Aghion
I am not familiar with each of these, but atleast half of these are classical ecconomists in some form, and though there must be atleast one, I do not recognize a single keynesian or neo-keynsain.
There are about a bazillion ways to resolve immigration.
None of which the left wants to talk about.
I support legal residence for that “dreamers” who:
arrived in the US at an age under 16.
have not had any oportunity to become legal residents that they have declined.
Have not committed felonies in the US.
I do not support automatic citizenship.
There are estimates of as many as 3M dreamers – but there are only about 600K that meet the criteria above.
I support automatic citizenship for ANYONE who joins the US military and serves in a combat zone.
I support an oportunity for citzenship for anyone who joins the US military.
I do not support any preferences on any other basis. If you want to go to college or join the peace corp that is your business.
I do NOT support deporting people charged with crimes.
I support deportation of NON-CITIZENS CONVICTED of VIOLENT fellonies.
Any person or group who is willing to take fully financial responsibility for someone who wishes to immigrate to this country should be free to do so. But that must be meaningful financial responsibility.
I would otherwise not limit that form of immigration in anyway.
If the catholic church, the DNC, McDonald’s or Roby wishes to take responsibility for a person in the caravan – they may do so.
I would grant permanent residence to anyone who has been here for many years and taken care of themselves over that time.
I would allow any permanent resident to sponsor others.
That is how families should be allowed to migrate.
If you want to sponsor your brother, your uncle, your neighbor – taking responsibility for them, then they can come.
What policies does O’Rourke support ?
I am sure he has said things – that is not the point. The point is that policy and O’Rourke have nothing to do with each other. He is another light weight pretty boy. That is not a thing that he says as a candidate that you can take to the bank. I am sure if elected he will eloquently explain why he is screwing you.
As to comparisons to Obama – Really ?
Get a clue – 2016 was a REPUDIATION of Obama.
If your argument is O’Rourke is no worse than Obama – Trump has won.
Regardless, O’Rourke is a pretty good reflection of what is wrong with Democrats.
Style over substance. There might be a few children out they drawn in by the “aura” who buy what he is selling – and it really does not matter what that is. He is another Kennedy. He even has his own Chapaquick and he has not been elected yet.
Trump is the train wreck in my universe. The 2020 POTUS race is the Democrats to lose. They are unlikely to take the Senate even if they win the white house. I suppose that it is possible that 2012 could repeat itself, that is, a rout of the GOP if the trump chaos is complete enough, but baring that the Dem POTUS would not have free reign to carry out prog programs. There is a lot of living to do prior to the next election.
I see the best the GOP can do with the senate is 50-50 in 2020, and with a democrat president, the tie breaker will be the democrat VP, so it will be 51-50 “D”. I suspect Jones losing in Alabama, but the GOP losing Colorado (Gardner). North Carolina (Tillis), Arizona (McSally I think running after filling McCain’s seat) and Maine (Collins).
But its the younger generation that needs to worry since it will be legislation that is put into affect that will impact them much more than myself.
Republicans have more vulnerable seats in 2020.
They will be lucky to maintain their current margins.
But they are not likely to end up with 50 seats or less.
Further It is a presidential election year. It is very very rare that incumbents lose.
It is rarer that they lose in good economies.
It is near certain that the Mueller investigation will end soon.
Those on the left can continue to engage in wishful thinking that Mueller knows something that has not leaked – but it is a far wiser bet to beleive that Mueller knows nothing that is not already in the press, and worse for Dems that whatever he knows is much less damaging that what is already in the press.
Put simply Mueller will fizzle.
The best thing that Democrats could do for Republicans is declare war from the house.
If they actually want a shot at regaining serious control of government – they need to stand for something. That something has to have the support of the majority of the american people – and absolutely nothing democrats are debating does that.
And they need to figure out how to work with Trump to accomplish good things for the country.
If little or nothing happens in the next 2 years except more of the 24×7 Trump outrage show – not only do Democrats lose the presidency in 2020, but they lose the house again.
“Trump is the train wreck in my universe.”
How so Roby ?
What has he DONE – not what has he said. That has F’d you over personally ?
“The 2020 POTUS race is the Democrats to lose.”
Not a chance.
I will predict right now that Trump will not only win, but he will win BIGGER than in 2016.
Nothing has changed. He will have the benefit of incumbancy.
While he will not have Clinton as an opponent (probably), the remaining democrats are light weights. I do not think there is a credible democratic candidate that is not significantly to the left of Clinton, and worse the democratic primary will drive them further to the left.
“They are unlikely to take the Senate even if they win the white house.”
Just as this year the senate math favored the GOP, in 2020 it will favor democrats – but not enough to retake the senate. Further republicans control less of the senate than their representation in various states should reflect.
Regardless, Roby, you are living in a fantasy world.
Did you see Trump beating Clinton ? Weren’t you with Hillary in wondering why she was not ahead by 50 pts ?
That should be a big clue as to why you lost the election. You have no sense of the country of its people.
I do not agree with Trump on many issues – but on those issues I disagree with him he has enormous popular support. You are incapable of grasping that.
Until you understand why people voted for him, how do you expect to persuade them ?
Even this Russian influence nonsense – is an insult to the very voters you are claiming were influenced. Do you understand who stupid such a claim is ?
Do you think you will get a voter back by telling them they were Trolled by Russians ?
Do you think they will beleive you ?
To win in 2020 you have to PERSUADE VOTERS – to INFLUENCE them. You havr to commit the same crime you allege the Russians did.
One of the news stories of the day is that the DNC afflitated cyber security firm that was the source of the voters were influenced by Russian Bots nonsense, in the Senate Democrats report, has been caught creating fake russian web sites in the Roy Moore Alabama Senate election.
I am glad Moore lost,
But in what world is it morally acceptable to you to create fake web sites that you claim are linked to Russia and then claim that Moore is getting Russian help when that is not true ?
And in what world where that is true – is it difficult to beleive that the exact same thing is what the left and the media are trying to do to Trump.
Which brings us to the second news story of the day – according to Christopher Steele – most of the Steele Dossier – including the most salacious stories do not come from his “russian sources” – they come from Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS.
As another story noted – the lynch pin in the entire Steele Dossier is Carter Page.
The Dossier was used to get warrants to spy on Carter Page – because the Dossier makes him the prime conduit for collusion with Russia.
Yet, Carter Page is the one person who has testified repeatedly, been interviewed by the FBI and Mueller and congress and no one has yet indicted or charged and it is near certain never will.
Nearly everything in the Dossier regarding page is either an outright falsehood, or a gross misrepresentation of the Truth.
Maybe it is easier for you to understand that – if Carter Page is not a russian agent, then what you have is a vile political frame up of an innocent third party to target someone else.
Where have we seen that before ?
I seem to recall the Obama whitehouse claiming that Benghazi was about an internet video that no one had seen, and then sending the innocent producer of that video to jail.
You keep telling me that Trump is evil.
When has Trump tired to criminally frame some innocent to get at an enemy ?
We now have two documented instances in which democrats have done that.
Is that your idea of acceptable ?
In your world is the political party in power free to frame people either to cover up its own misconduct or to mount a tangential attack on their enemies ?
You rant about Trump’s purported lies.
Is lying about Carter Page OK to you – and remember according to Christopher Steele – Glenn Simpson is the actual source for most of the Steele Dossier – not Russian agents or contacts.
Was lying about Benghazi during an election OK with you ?
You are offering Romney today as an honorable man of good character – did you vote for that man of good character in 2012 ? Or the one who lied about Benghazi and framed an innocent man ?
Trump is the symptom – not the cause, or more accurately the backlash.
The left has spent decades perfecting identity politics. Though the entire concept is ludicrous, they have ultimately gone so far that Trump was able to make the left self parody.
The changes of racism, xenophobia, mysogyny, … do not stick – not because Trump met some standard of perfection – that was never doable anyway. The left has as I noted spent decades perfecting this. No one on the right can ever be good enough not to be targeted as a hateful hating hater, nothing anyone on the left can ever do can be bad enough to subject them to a fraction of the treatment that any on the right get for conduct half as bad.
What tipped was that too much of america saw that the attacks on Trump were attacks on them.
How you define misconduct actually matters. When you define racism so broadly your net ensnares more than half the population – you lose. You lose even if more than half the population is racist.
You can not change the world by insulting everyone who does not share your views.
Trumps success is because what he says is not that different from what a large portion of his voters, a large portion of americans either say themselves, or atleast think.
It does not matter whether it is wrong – and mostly it is not, if your political platform is most of the country is hateful hating haters – you lose.
Today we have Romney attacking Trump and so many here cheering.
How is it that Romney is your hero today – but he was the evil racist goat 7 years ago ?
There was an editorial about the diefication of GHWB after his death.
“The only good republican is a dead republican”.
The point was that the left demonized GHWB and McCain in life but canonized them in death. We are seeing a version of that with Romney .
Romney has not changed. He is neither the saint you make him at the moment nor the villian you made him in 2012. He was absolutely right when the day after Benghazi he declared it was an organized Terrorist attack. Obama knew he was right, Hillary knew he was right, Powers and Rice knew he was right, and they all LIED to the american people to win an election.
Compared to that what the left beleives Trump did is tame.
The president of the united states, and the secretary of state and several other key national security and foreign affairs people KNOWINGLY LIED about an important issue related to national security for the purpose of winning an election.
I think that one of the reasons so many on the left want to beleive that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election – is because they would have, they believe that Obama would have, that Clinton would have and they wonder why she didn’t.
Quite often the evil people accuse others of is what they see in themselves.
When you here the left and the media ranting about Trump.
Consider They believe Trump did what they are accusing him of – because they would have.
Which is a part of why they lost.
I would further note the left today is without any moral foundation of any kind.
I have asked here on TNM – for “moderates” to state what are the principles that underpin what it means to be moderate. At best I get a collection of values.
There is nothing wrong with values. But values are not immutable.
I value chocolate. I value ice cream. From those two values you can not determine what I will do given a choice between chocolate and ice cream.
People compromise on values all the time – and there is nothing wrong with that.
Values conflict all the time – and there is nothing wrong with that.
But it is our principles and the extent to which we conform to them that is the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil.
The left has no princples. Just a collection of conflicting values.
Prof. Turley just wrote two editorials essentially saying that – where is the liberalism that he has fought all his life for ? It is not reflected in the democratic party today. And Trump is not an excuse for sacrificing principles.
Others on the left are saying the same. Derschowitz is constantly showing up on Fox or other right wing outlets – Why ? Because the left does not want to hear about civil rights or the rule of law – so long as it is Trump or his clan whose rights are being violated.
Many of us – whether Derschowitz or Turley or myself make it crystal clear it is not Trump we are defending – but liberalism – classical liberalism. Concepts like the rule of law.
The egual application of the law, due process, not criminalizing everything.
The least rights you give those you hate the most are the least rights you can be sure of having yourself.
Biden ?
Come on ?
Are we going to continue to make the presidential contest into a test of who is the most pervy ?`
Can I remind you. There is no credible allegation against Trump of non-consensual conduct.
Biden is a real documented groper. Trump just brags about it.
Who do you want as president the man whose talk is offensive or the one whose acts are offensive ?
The left has suddenly made “character” a test for being president.
Was it a test for Bill Clinton ?
Was it for Hillary ?
Aparently according to the left Romney today has stellar character – but in 2012 he had bad character.
Biden purportedly has good character ?
Biden is likeable enough – so is charlie rose.
Does likeable give you a free pass to do vile things ?
Or is it only a pass if you are a democrat ?
Roby;
I am not so much defending Trump as attacking his attackers.
Some of them because they are stupid.
I respect Romney. Like Trump he has been successful – though less so than Trump. He has had to make tough choices. He has had to triage businesses inorder for them to survive.
A business MUST profit to survive.
But I was blase about Romney’s political career. Milquetoast republican quasi leftists are not what this country needs more of.
Romney’s Trump critique is interesting. Hold it up as inspirational – and I can support it.
These are all things we WISH were true of american presidents.
But pretend that it is real or that Trump is somehow a uniquely poorer example and you are being dishonest.
Compare Bill Clinton to Donald Trump as President:
And tell me where Clinton com es out ahead ?
As much as I hate to admit it despite many flaws and many things he did wrong – not just as a person but as a president, Clinton was still a good president and a Lousy human being.
Like Romney and probably you – I can wish for a president that is both a good person and a good president. I have pretty uniformly voted for the candidate I thought had the best character.
But we elected Clinton, and we elected Trump.
And frankly Both Romney and McCain had better character than Obama.
I do not recall saying Trump was a great president. There is a huge distance between better than the previous 4 and great.
So far the “train” is not “wrecking”.
We have massive manufactured outrage because leftists can not grasp that anyone – much less half the country might disagree with them.
And despite incredibly turbulent politics – turbulence that the LEFT is fully responsible for, things are going OK – not great, but OK. It only appears great, because we have not seen OK in 20 years.
Regardless, there is no reason for the outrage.
I wonder how much money Rasmussen is making off off providing his comforting polls to the delusionals? He must be making a killing off of selling his alternate universe to the GOP cultists.
Brooks nailed it by the. Romney too. Are we tired of winning yet?
My prediction: this is the year when trump fatigue reaches the GOP masses. Enjoy the ride Donald!
Of course Rassmussen is making money. That is why people are in business.
Few of us would go to work each day if we were not paid.
Business is the trade of value for value.
Those paying Rassmussen expect value for what they pay.
Absolutely they are happy when his polls tell them what they hope for.
At the same time, they use his polls to make business and political decisions, and they are very unhappy when his polls are wrong.
Overall Rassmussen has proven one of the most accurate polls
They have had some bad elections, but they have also been right – not merely right, but the most accurate, more often than others.
And that is why people pay them money.
Predict what you want – you may even bee right.
But history tells us that voters fatigue of outrage and attack more than even actual criminality, much less the fake criminality you are selling.
Personally I am surprised the left has sustained the outrage this long.
I would further suguest the danger to Trump is not “trump fatigue”, but Trump complacency.
Nearly every study of Trump voters suggests they were angry in 2016 and that is why they voted. They are happy now, and there is serious concern that so long as they are happy that they will not vote.
The worst thing that could happen to the left is for Trump voters to get angry again – because they are not getting angry at Trump.
And I strongly suspect Donald is enjoying the ride.
You should think about that possibility.
Trump is 73. He is a multibillionaire.
If he LOST 100M a year – he would still have a couple of billion when he died.
His life will not change in the slightest if he loses 100M a year or makes $1B/year.
He ran for President for the same reason he moved to cassino’s and then to beuty pagents and reality TV and eventually to politics.
He craves the attention. He wants to be remembered.
He wants to be in the limelight.
All the claims of financial conflicts and motives are nonsense.
Decades ago those might have mattered to Trump. Not now.
You have spent two years trying to make him miserable – and the only person you have made miserable is yourself.
The fascinating story to me in the trump phenomonon is watching tens of millions of people, not all of them stupid, doing the eequivilent of becoming Scientologist s or Moonies. Just leaving their old beliefs behind to be part of a clearly nutty movement with it’s own that they will twist themselves into pretzels to explain. It’s like having a million jehovas witness es descend on my house.
“The fascinating story to me in the trump phenomonon is watching tens of millions of people, not all of them stupid, doing the eequivilent of becoming Scientologist s or Moonies.”
Maybe you should consider that what you are describing is NOT what happened.
Trump voters did not do the equivalent of convert to scientology or become moonies.
“Just leaving their old beliefs behind”
They did ?
The big swing for Trump was from rust belt democrats – white blue collar workers who have for DECADES been arguing EXACTLY what Trump argued. In fact for much of that time DEMOCRATS held the positions that Trump won them over on.
These people did not abandon their beleifs – their party abandoned their beleifs so they switched to the candidate that was pushing their beleifs.
“to be part of a clearly nutty movement”
Having watched Obama’s “mount olympus” events and Beto ORourkes pretty much everything, you can argue about people getting sucked into nutty movements ?
Not to mention Sanders ? How do you explain tens of millions of people voting for a candidate that advocates for an ideology that has not merely failed but resulted in the most copious amount of bloodshed in all of human history.
Is supporting a candidate that advocates for the kind of socialism that killed over 100M people in the 20th century – is that not a “nutty movement” that killed 5 times more people than Hilter – also a socialist ? Is that not nutty ?
Regardless, the Trump voters are not for the most part, part of some “movement”.
Every party and every candidate has a small portion of cult followers.
But the tens of millions of Trump voters were not part of some cult, nor were they duped by Russian Bots.
How do you reconcile your concept of majoritarian rule with your beleif that 10’s of millions of people are cretens decieved by Trump or Russian Bots ?
Why do you beleive that Trump voters are going to be less likely in 2020 to vote for Trump ?
Trump has either kept or tried very hard to keep his campaign promises to those blue collar democrats that won him the election.
He promised them a wall – and you can be sure who he and they will blame if he does not get it, and if he does, it is a promise kept. He promised to fight for them against “unfair trade”.
You and I can debate the technical merits of what he has done. But there is ZERO doubt that those voters will see what he has done as delivering to trying to deliver on that promise.
Are voters in 2020 going to vote for the party that can not even state its own views on immigration ? Are they going to vote for a party that opposes open borders by name, but can not distinguish between what they want and Open Borders ?
He promised for get out of Afghanistan and to win in Syria quickly.
He is trying to deliver on those promises. More importantly the entire left has gone out of their way to identify themselves with endless war.
Trump has driven the Neo-Cons back to the democratic party and the party has not merely embraced them but taken ownership of the neocon view of government.
Democrats are now the party of Max Boot and Dick Chenney
Obama promissed to get us out of Iraq, and Afghanistan – instead he started new wars and we ended his presidency with more military entanglements than ever.
Today Trump is tweeting that he really fired Mattis over Afghanistan.
I do not think that is litterally true. But what is True is that Trump eventually became exasperated by the generals insistance on “endless war”. Last year he reluctantly and angrily followed their advice. Today he said – it will be my way, and if you do not like it you can leave.
And for days I have listened to those on the left and in the media berating Trump for DOING what they cheered Obama for merely promising.
Are those people who voted for Bush II because he promised no foreign entanglements, no nation building – naive cretins – moonies ? Are those – who were suspicious of and eventually hostile to Iraq and Afghanistan scientologists ? Are those of us who beleive like Washington that the US should trade with all and avoid foreign entanglements and war and look after our own interests first and last, are we some cult members ? The Cult of Washington ?
Are those of us who heard and accept Eisenhowers warning about the Military Industrial complex tin foil hatters ?
In 2020 are voters going to vote for the party of war ?
Trump promised actual conservatives that he was going to put people who adhered to the constitution in the courts. Myriads of candidates have promised that before. Those candidates delivered, Breyer, and Souter and Kennedy and Roberts.
Had The Bushes delivered more Neil Gorsuches accross the courts we would have far more of the rule of law today.
Conservative vote over court apointments, Democrats do not.
That even seems to be reflected in 2018. Voters took the House from Trump and Republicans. But they made it EASIER for him to confirm judges. Further they have made it near certain that the primary work of the senate for the next two years is going to be delivering more judges.
Do you think those conservatives are going to vote for Beto ? or Biden ? or Warren ?
Have they betrayed their principles by actually getting a president who delivered on his promises to them ?
Or do you think they are just going to stay home ?
If so aren’t you talking voter supression ?
Isn;t “voter supression” what the media and the left have been trying to do for the past 3 years (or decades).
Is it wrong for republicans to try to persuade voters that their candidates are of bad character or will not live up to their promises, but praiseworthy when democrats do the same ?
Trump promised a robust economy. While the current economy is actually merely average – it has been so long since people have seen average they are celebrating as if it is actually robust. Regardless, do you really beleive that voters are going to dump trump to take a flyer on some democrat promising some version of the Obama years – plus even more government programs ?
Do you really beleive it is crazy that voters rejected 4 more years of Obama’s stagnant economy ? Do you really beleive they are going to be more inclined to buy more stagnation in 2020?
I can go on and on. I do not necescarily agree with each of Trumps’s positions.
But Trump’s 2016 voters have no reason to vote against him in 2020. And many many others have good reason to vote for him.
You keep trying to sell this Liar, Liar Liar, Pants on Fire nonsense.
Yet, no president has ever delivered on so much of what he promised.
GOP voters have gone off like a swarm of hippies led by Abbie Hoffman. Down with everything! Fuck the establishment! Power to the people! Don’t trust anyone under 35!
The hippies had to grow up and get lives to survive adult life. This crew of revolution aries is going to be making a pain in the ass of themselves in nursing homes in their next phase.
“GOP voters have gone off like a swarm of hippies led by Abbie Hoffman. Down with everything! Fuck the establishment!”
I wish that is what GOP voters were doing. Can you honestly claim that our government looks good to you ?
But that is NOT what Trump voters have done. They specifically voted against the washington power elite. Against the Clinton’s and Obama’s, the Romney’s the Mueller’s the Comey’s – those who make the laws for the rest of us, do not follow them themselves, but reign terror on the rest of us for tiny infractions. They have voted against those in washington that think of themselves as our betters.
“The hippies had to grow up and get lives to survive adult life. This crew of revolution aries is going to be making a pain in the ass of themselves in nursing homes in their next phase.”
The hippies were right about freedom. They were wrong about free lunch.
These new hippies you are bemoaning want freedom, not free lunch – they HAVE grown up and gotten lives and survived adult life.
BTW absent the youth vote Democrats could not win an election to dog catcher. Republicans win almost every age above 40 – dominating most – according to Gallup.
You have absolutely identified the wrong group as the children.
Dave. Where’s that missing 7.6% Military Pay Raise Trump said he gave to them?
Is he laundering that money through Deutsche Bank, to get soldiers the missing $$$$$?
“Dave. Where’s that missing 7.6% Military Pay Raise Trump said he gave to them?
Is he laundering that money through Deutsche Bank, to get soldiers the missing $$$$$?”
Can we dispense with the nonsense ?
It is an absolute fact that Trump gave the military an actual raise – the first on since 1973.
We can fight over percentages. and how to measure it.
If you are a soldier – which matters to you – whether you actually got the 10% Trump says he gave you. or Whether you got the first raise beyond COLA in 50 years ?
If you are a soldier – does it matter what the PRess says you got as a raise ? What the WaPo fact checker says you got ? What Trump says you got ? Or what you have in your pocket ?
If you are a soldier are you going to vote for the president who exagerated the raise he gave you or the party that has been flat out lying about giving you a raise for 50 years ?
We debate many things here.
You are quibbling with Trump over the imprecision and exagerations in his speach.
I have attacked you over the imprecisions and exagerations (being charitable) in yours.
Somehow that seems the same – and my attacking you for imprecision and defending Trump seems hypcritical – but for one thing. In all cases there is a reality. There is a real world.
My attacks on your remarks are almost always because your imprecision turns reality on its head. They are because you expect us to beleive what you say rather than what we see if we bother to look.
With respect to your attacks on Trump – much the same is true. You are still trying to distort reality. It is not what Trump says that matters. It is what he does. Just as you try to convince me that what you say is more important than reality. You also try to convince everyone that what Trump says is more important than reality.
Maybe there are soldiers who are going “wait, I did nto get 10% more in my paycheck, who is ripping me off, and I am not going to vote for this smuck again.”
I would venture there are far more saying – 3% or whatever the number is plus COLA is better than any other president has ever given me before. If this guy wants to brag he has given me 10%, I can live with that and vote for him. because something is better than nothing. And 3% over a decade is 30% more than I would have made otherwise.
Screwed again! “Shutdown Leaves Food, Medicine and Pay in Doubt in Indian Country”https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/us/native-american-government-shutdown.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
The solution to this is very simple. Right now the wall has 1.5 billion., The administration wants 5 billion. Difference 3.5 billion.
So Nancy goes to Mitch and offers 3.25B and DACA getting first in line for citizenship (if they have been here for an extended number of years, negotiated) and also worker permits for illegals who have been here (also for a number of years, negotiated). They agree on a bill, it goes before the house and senate, Trump signs or vetoes and the the veto is over ridden.
(Aint gonna happen, moderate solution, helps country, helps immigrants, bad for reelection)
One of the issues regarding DACA is who does it cover.
There were approximately 3M people in the US that Obama’s program would have applied to. But Obama’s DACA required those people to apply for the program. Only about 800K did.
Of those only 600K remain an open issue. the others have either become permanent residents already or left. There are about 2.2M people who did not apply for the DACA program who could have.
Mostly there is little talk of them. But generally Republicans only want DACA to apply to those who applied. Democrats are generally looking for more – but only 1.2-1.4M
I would further note there is a difference between permanent residence – i.e. we can not deport you, and citizenship.
With respect to your proposed deal.
Democrats do not want a deal.
They do not want to solve the problem.
They want the issue as a campaign issue they do not want to solve the problem.
Schumer was offered a better deal than you are proposing last year – he accepted and then renigged.
Trump has pretty much said he will roll on pretty much every Democrat demand – DACA, familiy separation, ….. so long as the Wall is fully funded.
I would note there is another reason for this fight.
It does not matter what the Dollar figure for the Wall is.
Whatever is agreed to will be part of every budget from then on.
Once there is a deal – in subsequent years that part of the budget will be exempt from the Senate 60 vote Rule. That is likely the hidden obstacle here.
If Trump gets 5B – he will likely have more than half the border wall build before the end of his first term.
Blacks bemoan that we enslaved them 150 years ago.
We also committed near genocide to indians in the 19th century.
But what we have done to the indians in our lifetimes is pure evil.
And the problem is not that they will miss medicaid payments during the shutdown, it is that we have taken entire races of people and made them wards of the state.
Let the indians go. Close the bureau of indian affairs. Quit treating them like children.
To the extent Trump continues to do so – damn him – as well as every president and politician before him.
What our government has done to the american indians should be all the proof needed that there is no such thing as benevolent government.
As Reagan said
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’
No one needs the kind of help we have given indians.
Government treatment of indians should make everyone libertarian.
Sounds like Hillary warehousing her troops on a tax favored basis again: “How Biden Has Paved the Way for a Possible Presidential Run
A series of careful financial decisions, and the creation of nonprofits and academic centers staffed by close advisers, would help a campaign-in-waiting.”
“He has done so while building a network of nonprofits and academic centers that are staffed by his closest strategists and advisers, many making six figures while working on the issues most closely identified with him. It has effectively become a campaign-in-waiting, poised to metamorphose if the 76-year-old Mr. Biden announces his third bid for the presidency.”
I lost some respect for him.
You had respect for “the groper” ?
Regardless – just get government out of all of this.
NO CORPORATE TAXES AT ALL – then we can entirely eliminate the concept of a non-profit and all the tax nonsense that goes with it.
The Clinton Foundation has become a model for a political powerbase.
I do not honestly beelive that many real people contribute to the Clinton Foundation because of the charitable work they do – given that donations have dropper 90% since losing the election it seems pretty obvious that CF was about politicial influence.
I do not honestly care if Sorros or Russian Oligarches want to give money to CF.
What matters – all that matters is that as Sec State, CF became a unofficial back channel into government. That and that alone is CORRUPT.
I think those of you who think that CF ever was a real charity are idiots.
But if the Clinton’s can get lots of rich russians to provide sinecure jobs for out of power democrats – I am fine with that.
Though “Oh My God, Russians influenceing our elections!!!”.
I do not give a damn how Biden builds the resources for his political campaign.
I do not care if he gets money from Russians. or they run up facebook adds for him.
The only thing that matters – is whether those who contribute get anything in return.
If that is the case – that is a crime. And it is a crime committed by the politician.
It is the betrayal of the public trust that is the crime, not paying for influence.
Erick Erickson, for fuck’s sake:
“Yesterday, Mitt Romney had an op-ed go up at the Washington Post in which he said what pretty much everyone except the President’s most ardent supporters think. The President has bad character.
Romney said nothing out of the ordinary for political conversations. In fact, some of the very people most outraged in public about Romney are, in private, open to saying the same thing Romney said publicly. That, however, is the problem. The outrage is not over what Mitt Romney said, but rather that he said it. By being willing to say publicly what others say privately, he puts the others in difficult positions. So they have to respond.”
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/gop-is-outraged-at-mitt-romney-for-saying-publicly-what-the-gop-says-privately-LhtcLxNC6Uu1EmgP6jv-gw/
And Erickson can without any hypocracy say these things.
He has demanded character – from republicans, and from democrats.
What of you ?
I will care what you say about Trump’s character when you hold others to the same standards.
What do you think Erickson’s views of Clinton are ?
Do you think Erickson is a big fan of perjury, or getting others to lie under oath ? or rape ? or sexual assault ?
Regardless, the most fundimental problem with Romney’s remarks are that he has joined the left in crying “wolf” despite the fact that 7 years ago – the left was crying “wolf” about Romney.
I do not know for sure – but I suspect Romney has better character than any president we have had since Reagan. That did not win the election for him.
Trump is not unusual. He is not even a president of unusally bad character.
It is arguable that he may have better character than any president since Reagan.
You bemoan Trump “lying” claiming that Trump has unusally bad character – is lying.
As I have said before – he is a sheep next to Wolf Clinton.
Go ahead – keep trying to claim that a probable rapist, certain serial sexual harrasser, perjurer and suborner of perjury is snow white compared to Trump.
You defending Clinton while attacking Trump is priceless.
Moving over to Rick’s new post,
I am a centrist and believe each side should start TALKING to the other side and quit pushing its own agenda. There are problems in this country that need to be solved and they will NEVER be solved if we will not listen to each other and COMPROMISE.
Hi Valerie. Welcome to the Moderate Cauldron.
Good luck with that ‘let’s talk’ strategy.
Let’s not talk a better idea.
My longest lasting friendship – 50 years – is with a Tea Party Conservative, former speach writer for Giuliani, and presently still publishing commentary for a conservative online magazine. We communicate with each other weekly, mostly via email – and never (I repeat NEVER) discuss politics. Yet we have lots of news to share with each other to keep us laughing in common enjoyment. Here’s an example of news links we share:
https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/united-airlines-pilot-and-copilot-fired-for-having-loud-sex-together-during-flight/O
Thank you so much for your informative reply! I don’t discuss politics in the sense of the Republicans or Democrats, but I do discuss problems and how we can solve them. People need to quit being so aligned with their party and the talking heads that they fail to see the actual problems and look for solutions for them. I’m for solving the problems, not viewing others as the enemy!
Valerie, it is nice to have new voices come to this site. From my perspective, you will find us to not be totally off the wall (not the one being discussed), but there are many different perspectives provided on just about any subject one might want to add. From what I consider maximum Libertarian that will defend that position to death to fairly liberal, but not what one may call the Sanders/ AOC liberal. Guess thats why we are in The New Moderate, we balance each other out.
What I picked up on right from your first comment was the “compromise” comment. This alao will bring debate since we seem to have difficulties determining just what compromise is these days even here.
But one thing for sure, this is much more mellow than many of the other places one can visit, comment and get taken to the cleaners with attacks on ones positions. I know from personal experience, my right of center, libertarian thinking and comments brought the wrath of _____ down on me many times. Here, they just dont agree many times.
Just stick around, read the many comments and you will find just who is in what political belief segment.
Thanks!
Ron,
I do not think we disagree on what compromise is,
only on when it is appropriate.
Compromise is a tool – not a value or principle.
To the extent that there are principles in debate in the current issues regarding the wall or the shutdown – none are on the line in a way that compromise is not possible.
From what I see – Trump is open to compromise, and the democrats are not.
Just to be clear that assessment is specific to the problem of the borders and immigration.
“I’m for solving the problems, not viewing others as the enemy!”
Good for you.
I would completely agree.
But if you review my posts – or ask any other poster here, I am less concerned with exactly how problems are solved, than whether a problem requires government to solve it.
Anything government does is force. If you do not think so, try steadfastly opposing government and see how long it takes before men with guns show up.
Contra others here – that DOES NOT, mean I am opposed to all government.
Just that my first question regarding any problem is “does solving this problem require force ?”
Some problems do – we use force to deal with crimes. We use atleast the threat of force when people do not live up to commitments – contracts, and we use force or the threat of force to gain compansation when people – even accidentally cause real harm to another.
But most problems in the world do not require force, and therefore do not require government.
That does not mean they are not problems.
One of the things about problems that do not require force – is that we need not agree on them. We can talk, we can argue, we can disagree vehemntly, and I can attempt to solve them my way, and you yours. And if your way is better – you get the benefit.
Talking is good, agreeing is good, but unless a problem requires government we neither must talk or agree.
I would note that MOSTLY we do better at getting along when we keep government out of out problems. We are MORE likely to talk, to listen, to work together – not that we always do so.
That is true BECAUSE no force is involved.
Whenever government is involved – there is always winners and losers. The stakes are higher, tensions are higher and one or both sides are trying to impose BY FORCE their will on the other.
I think most of the problems we argue about, that get us all incensed should not involve government, and that if they did not we would all do better with each other.
One of the big debates at the moment is over immigration.
I am an actual (mostly) open borders libertarian. But open borders is not something that can exist in a vaccuum, If you have open borders and a minimum wage as an example – you are going to have massive illegal employment.
That is not avoidable. You can not tell millions of low skilled workers we want you to come here, and say but we will not hire you unless the work you can do is worth atleast 7.25/hr.
Nor is mimimum wages the only law that can not co-exist with mostly open immigration.
I accept that we are NOT going to do what it takes to have open borders (for the moment)
Therefore we have figure out what can be made to work.
I am flexible on that – but I am not hypocritical enough to pretend that defacto open borders is not the same as open borders.
If we have borders and rules regarding who can and can not come here – that unfortunate IS a real problem that is a GOVERNMENT problem. We can not limit movement over our broders without using force, and force is the domain of government.
I do not presume to know the answer to exactly what the limits on immigration should be or how to impliment them. But not knowing what is right or what might work, is not the same as being able to tell that many things are WRONG.
One of my ideas – not “The Solution” – just one thing to reduce conflict, is to allow individuals and groups to sponsor immigrants – they get to choose who they sponsor, but when they sponsor a person they are responsible for them for 5 years.
If you wish to bring an immigrant from China, or Honduras or Haiti or a family – that is your business, But you are responsible.
BTW I frequently look to solve problems in this way.
I generally oppose government charity – because when you are spending other peoples money – no matter what for you have enormous obligations.
We fight over whether you can spend it on groups that support abortion or those who oppose it, over whether those recieving aide should have to get job training, or get sterilized or not commit crimes, or not by shrimp with public charity.
I personally give to homeless people. When I do I get to choose what I will give and what strings I will attach.
I can take a homeless person to a diner and feed them a meal – if I am concerned about how they spend the money I give. Or I can give them a 20 and they may spend it on drugs and if I give them cash I accept that I have no control over that.
There is not a right answer as to how to help others. But there are wrong answers.
Forcing others to do it as you wish is wrong.
Welcome Valerie;
Regulars are currently posting here.
Absolutely talking is important, which is why free speach is so critical.
I do not think that most of the issues we face are nearly so important as the erosion in the US of the high value we place on free speach.
There is nothing wrong with “pushing an agenda” – everyone does that – even moderates.
Even centrism is an agenda. The problem is not with the agenda, it is with “pushing”.
If you seek to impose your views by force – even if your “agenda” is best, you are wrong, you are immoral.
The country always had and always will have problems to be solved. That is not new.
In fact overall we are in better shape than ever.
Most problem solving has nothing to do with government.
It is that problem solving that involves government that is where all the conflict is.
And that is because all actions of government are force.
Your oppinion of whether your neighbor should buy a new car or an RV is not ordinarily imposed by force. Your neighbor may or may not listen to what you have to say and he will make his own choice, and your world will not end if he chooses different than your preference.
But when government is involved – force is involved, and the impact of every decision is much greater. Every decision govenrment makes picks winners and losers, every decision govenrment makes harms some and helps others, ever decisions government makes angers some and elates others.
We should not use government to solve ANY problems unless those problems can not be solved without government.
Some of what we fight over at the moment are issues that must involve government – such as immigration – though a great deal of even that can be removed from the hands of government.
But most of what we fight over does not require government, and therefore should not involve government.
I am famous at TNM for pointing out hat COMPROMISE is a tool – not a principle.
There are times to compromise, and there are times not to. We tried compromising with Hilter, ultimately compromise made things worse. Very few would claim that we should have compromised and gassed 3M jews rather than 7.
Thank you so much for your reply! I agree with a lot of what you said!
Thank you and again welcome.
There are a few regulars here – which you should be able to tell going through the posts.
Each of us has our own particularly viewpoint.
Exchanges sometimes get intense – but not to the degree found on many other sites – or in the media.
Further though I do not think there is agreement here on what is “moderate”, TNM is a place where disparate views are welcome.
This is not Fox or TPM where comments are dominated by one point of view, and where differing is considered trolling.
We have no trolls here. No matter whether I disagree with others here – they are sincere,
Thanks so much!
Let’s Take Donnie At His Word:
Trump is correct regarding that.
No portion of the executive may without the authorization of the president investigate whether the president is properly doing his job.
Congress can, The executive can not.
The constitution vests ALL executive power in the president – absolutely ALL.
The FBI has no power independent of the president.
This is also a part of what is wrong with the SC act – the earlier IC act had flaws, but atleast the investigations were being done by and supervised by Congress.
Congress can investigate anything they want regarding the president – though I would note that does not make all tools of investigation, such as subpeonas and warrants available to them. All forms of search require meeting the constraints of the 4th amendment.
I would specifically note regarding “National Security” – The president is the constitutional root of what is an is not in the interests of national security
As an example one of the bits of evidence that leaked out as a result of the inquiry into Clinton’s mail server was that Obama was sending classified information over private email.
That is an embarrasment, it is not a crime. The president can not violate the espionage act.
The source of the power to determine what is classified and what is not is the president.
All decisions made by others are delegations of presidential power.
Only congress can determine that the president or his actions are themselves a threat to national security. Not CIA, not FBI, not any other part of the executive.
The constitution delegates all executive power to the PRESIDENT.
There is no treasury department in the constitution, there is no FBI.
That does not mean that we can not disagree over whether the presidents actions are in the interests of the nation.
It just means the FBI may not investigate that.
On the 2020 election, since it has started already. Trump could win in a landslide if all falls perfectly for him. He could lose in a landslide if all goes wrong. There are a lot of balls in the air at present, China, Lil Kim and NK, trumps views on NATO and other US military commitments, Syria, ISIS, Afghanistan, the economy, and Mueller. Almost the only trump ball that is a solid result is the economy (and the SCOTUS nominees which may not be a plus for trump with the electorate as a whole). Who the dem party nominates is going to have a Huge impact. Which wing of the party will triumph?
My vote is meaningless, given where I live, but there is a nearly 0 chance I would vote for a progressive democrat. I suppose I could do it if the prog had a chance to win and trump’s mess gets to be utterly critically intolerable, all his balls in the air come up as disasters. There are many like me who’s votes are not meaningless.
Best case scenario for trump: all his foreign policy and trade initiative balls in the air bring positive fruit and are popular. The economy does not falter. The dems chose a prog candidate. Mueller’s findings implicate his campaign but not him directly. Enough Wall gets built to satisfy his base. Trump wins in a landslide.
Worst case for trump, NK pulls the football away, ISIS is loudly not dead, there is no agreement with China that is clearly a US win, Afghanistan falls into disaster, Mueller’s findings damn the trump campaign and trump personally, the dems somehow pick a candidate who is more or less not living in an economic and social policy land of delusions. The Wall clearly is a loss for trump. Then trump could lose in a landslide.
So, really its going to be some mix of these factors coming down for and against trump. Could trump in max wounded condition still beat a Warren? I have no idea, it could be a very close thing, or not.
Then there is the 3rd party candidate wildcard. I would be enthusiastically on board with Schultz if trump is not beatable due to some combination of the factors I mentioned. Shultz may even be able to leverage the dem party into choosing a more moderate candidate by coming right out and saying that he is going to run as an independent if they choose a progressive nominee, then he could let his campaign go if they choose a Biden. Ha, in my wildest dreams trump fails, the dems choose a lunatic, and Shultz wins and finally establishes an American moderate political turf. But I quit smoking dope when I was about 18, so…
Like any sane person I am hoping that the economy remains good, that NK disarms, that China alters its course, that ISIS is really defeated and harmless now, that Afghanistan does not fall back to the state it was in after we leave, that trump has not managed to really damage NATO and our alliance with South Korea. I am hoping all the trump balls in the air somehow come down as winners for Americans.
Anyone who thinks they know as of the moment how all this will play out is welcome to mortgage their house and bet everything they have got. Otherwise, its just noisy handwaving.
My take on your take:
The only decisive ball in the air for President is the Dem candidate. If enough negative hate, disgust, suspicion can be focused on the Dem (as it was on Hillary) the Dem loses.
But your assessments will enter into play for House and Senate votes. Trump relected with Republican majorities in either or both is too depressing to contemplate 🤔
Somewhere not so long ago there was a poll that said that I think it was 53% were absolutely certain that they would not vote for trump in 2020 and I believe it was 37 who were certain they would. It really matters how things go whether those people abandon that set of opinions. Things could go so badly for him that even a prog could win. Or all his bets on foreign policy could come up roses and he could win easily. But yes, the dem candidate will have a huge impact. Part of me thinks that over 2 years time enough economic proofs could be made that free everything via taxing the rich is not an actual workable or politically defendable plan and enough of the dems could understand that so that the dems could choose a decent economically literate candidate.
Its the moderates who will decide things in the general election. Which is why I do care about polls, the right and left voters are set in stone, the polls most of all show the movement of voters in the middle. Its been a bad cycle for trump, he made some gains in 2018, like about a 6-8 point swing in the Pos/neg difference, but now he is back where he was, at 56% unfavorable to say 39.5 favorable according to 538. I And much worse than that according to a whole number of polls, Gallup etc. If that holds steady as the new normal he is in much weaker position than he was, especially if the Mueller report is scathing.
Its a tossup but trump is not in a good position, the economy could not get much better but it could certainly contract and his lousy poll numbers have occurred even with a very solid economy. Not that I am wishing for a bad economy or any other bad news but he certainly has set himself up for facing consequences of his go it alone instinctive decisions.
I agree. It’s going to be wait & see…
How and whether those people whose votes are not already locked in vote absolutely matters.
They are not quite as determinative as you assert – but not because you are wrong, but because elections are more complicated than that.
Both parties work to attract voters from the center.
They also both work to drive voters NOT to voter for the other guy.
One of the many reasons Clinton lost was because democrats were NOT sufficiently enthusiastic about her. Lots of voters who would have voted democrat, either did not vote or voted for stein. Democrats try to do precisely the same thing to republicans.
That is a part of what all the hateful, hating hater garbage is all about – it enrages their own base and it supresses their oponents – or that is supposed to be how it works.
One of the problems is that when you start calling candidates hateful, hating haters – and the voters can not tell those candidates from themselves, instead of supressing the vote – you inflame it.
“Moderates” will likely determine the 2020 election – but these are not people like any of us here. These are voters in the rust belt. These are people who have been begging both democrats and republicans to adopt the very policies that Trump has made his own.
If you had asked me based on polls and approval ratings whether Obama was going to be re-elected – I would have said not a chance – and Romney was a far better candidate to challenge Obama than anything Democrats are putting forth.
Both parties should be trying to find the lessons regarding why democrats won the house in 2018. But they should also be looking to figure out why the republicans did well in the senate – and very nearly had a blowout in the senate. Any Republican but Moore would have won in Alabama, and Jones though I am sure he is a nice guy is losing in 2020. The Sienma/McSally race was close and could easily have gone the other way. Though it is unlikely republicans were going to win any of the other senate contests – they did better than expected in ALL of them.
And remember that a senate contest much more strongly predicts a presidential contest than a house race.
If you have not grasped that you can not trust what the media and polsters tell you people think – there is no help for you.
The all vitriole all the time world of public politics is NOT the world of actual voters.
Adn we are very bad at predicting what voters will do when they are in a voting booth.
When no one else in the world, not even their spouse will know for sure what block they checked.
“If enough negative hate, disgust, suspicion can be focused on the Dem (as it was on Hillary) the Dem loses.”
What nonsense, what hypocracy.
You accuse everyone you do not like of racism, mysogyny, bigottry,
You take every single difference of oppinion and turn it into an an accusation of degeneracy
You even seem to think that pointing out actual facts that are not consistent with your ideology is a basis for accusations of racism, ….
And you have the gall to call others on inflaming hatred.
Hillary had many problems as a candidate. She also had many advantages.
She squandered her advantages, and amplified her problems.
There are many reasons Hillary lost.
Among those – 2016 was likely to be a republican year.
We had 8 years of Obama, we were all experiencing obama fatigue.
The electorate as a whole might not be able to articulate all the problems with the Obama presidency, but we expected and deserved better – and we knew it.
Growth was subpar. Every other recession in US history has been followed by exceptional growth – except two – the Great depression and the great recession. Both of those follow the exact same pattern a quasi socialist republican F’d up the economy to be followed by a quasi socialist democrat. History teaches us exactly how government should respond to economic downturns, and it is the opposite of what progressives do. To policies of progressives wreak havoc even on good economies – look at what Chavez did to Venezeula or the Greeks did to themselves or the europeans ?
The left fawns over those socialist light european democracies – and yet their growth rates have directly and inversely tracked the degree of socialsim in their government.
The very thing that progressives praise about those countries is the CAUSE for their stagnant economies – and under Obama you inflicted that on the US with predictable results.
Voters could not articulate that. They do not “understand” the economics and the policies.
But they do know that the Obama presidency was not normal, that it was below expectations, that we could do better.
Americans were also angry and embarrased by a president that went arround the world appologizing for us.
Trump tapped into the psyche of the electorate with “Make America Great Again”.
Further decades of leftists spewing political hatred came to roost a major factor in Trump’s election was that he stood up to the left. He spoke about immigration and borders and left you call him a racist and then told you you were full of shit.
He gave voice to the tens of millions of americans who were tired of being silenced by the left with accusations of racism, being called deplorables, being called hateful, hating haters,
You made Donald Trump into their hero, because he stood up to you.
And you do not grasp that if you destroy him – he will be followed by someone even stronger.
The lesson that Trump – and future Trump’s – and make no mistake if the left does not change their will be future Trump’s have gotten – is FIRE EVERYONE at the start.
Do not trust anyone in washington. Clear out the top tiers of the entirety of the US government.
Other reasons Hillary lost – She was a crook. Get over it. Everyone understands that.
But lets accept what Comey said when “exhonerating” her at face value.
Alot of voters grasped that the recklessness and arrogance displayed by Clinton’s email server – whether a crime or not disqualified her.
Clinton also failed the sincerity test. While she ran on a fairly progressive platform, the fact is no one really beleives that Clinton has any values she holds dear – beyond more power for Hillary. Hillary is not a progressive or even a democrat. She is a HillaryCrat and people sensed that. That is part of the reason for Sanders strong following – he was an idiot advocating policies that would lead to ruin. But he was sincere, real.
I am not personally sure how sincere Trump is. I am not really sure he beleives some of the things he says that appeal to his voters. But regardless of my questions at worst he “fakes” sincerity well. Further the attacks the left makes on him make him look sincere.
Despite the fact that Trump is probably the most wealthy and privildged person ever to run for president, Trump came accross as genuine and in touch with the common person.
Hillary came accross as the elitist who was clueless about ordinary people.
The good news for democrats is that in 2020 there is pretty much no democratic candidate with the baggage of Clinton. The bad news is there is no candidate with the stature of Clinton. For god only knows what reason the democrats are doubling down on most of the mistakes of 2016. There is almost no democrat running that comes across as sincere – maybe Biden.
Almost the entire democratic slate is struggling to fall of the left side of the political spectrum.
That is just not going to work.
In 2020 Trump will be running as an incumbent – do not under estimate how important that is.
It is probably the most important factor in Romney’s defeat.
I would further remind you that democrats did well in 2018 – by tacking to the middle. Those democrats elected to swing districts are UNIFORMLY Moderates – and yet for 2020 Democrats are completely abandonding that strategy.
I have no idea if Howard Schultz will make a good president. There is still an awfull lot about him we do not know. But his criticisms of the current democratic party are completely valid.
Democrats have completely lost their way. The 2020 election is on the democratic side is shaping up to be over two issues – Trump hatred and socialism. That is a recipe for disaster.
If Democrats want to win in 2020 – instead of trying to drive him out – they should be getting behind Schultz and encouraging him to run as a democrat.
Roger Simon – a conservative pundit and one of the first to predict that Trump would win, has said that Schultz could easily be more than a spoiler. Perot was very successful at taking the middle – and he ran against two candidates without a great deal of daylight between them.
Democrats have ceded the middle entirely. They are betting that they have inflamed Trump hatred so much that no one in the middle can possibly vote for Trump. They have positioned Schultz near perfectly to take the center.
Just to be clear I am not saying Schultz should win.
Only that he appears to be far more politically savy than the entire democratic party at the moment.
“On this exact date in 1983, Reagan’s approval stood at 35 percent — his low point for the entire year. But, after a slow, steady climb, he ended that third year with a job approval at 54 percent. Then in late October 1984, days before his landslide, that rating ticked up to 58 percent.”
I doubt Trump will repeat Reagan’s blowout.
At the same time predicting elections based on approval ratings in January fo the 3rd year is a fools game.
More principled conservatives abandon Trumpism
https://thebulwark.com/why-we-are-quitting-redstate/
Principled ?
Is there a shortage of Trump criticism in the the world ?
Is there some special reason that everyone must get sucked into this nonsensical virtue signalling ?
You constantly smear me as some trumpanzi.
Yet, I have made it perfectly clear than I am at odds with Trump on some issues.
I do not defend Trump on everything.
Mostly I do not defend Trump.
I defend ideas – ideas like free speech, and individual liberty, and the rule of law.
But in your world everything is binary – you are either opposed to everything Trump, or you are an evil Trump supporter.
I do not honestly think Trump is all that good a president.
At the same time – we have not had all that many good presidents – and none lately.
I would take Calvin Coolidge or Ronald Reagan over Trump in a heart beat.
But those are not our choices.
I am capable of dealing with a world where Bill Clinton was an absolutely dispicable person – and yet he was a good president. Where GWB was a good person and a poor president.
Where Obama was a poor president.
I am almost certain to cast my vote based on MY assessment of actual character – and I am hard pressed to think of a democrat currently running who evidences good character,
but regardless of my vote – it is unlikely that a person of good character is going to win.
Once elected what matters is the good of the country.
I am fortunate in that my values – my principles, the maximum of individual liberty consistent with a functioning society, also WORK.
“the economy could not get much better but it could certainly contract”
Yes, .actually the economy could get better. Despite what Trump says constantly – this is not a “good” economy, it is just a mediocre economy. It is just been so long since we saw mediocre that it feels good.
CBO, and the Fed are currently predicting 2.3% growth for the next two years.
That is a worse than Trump’s first two years – it is also 1/2% better than Obama.
I think they are wrong – and I think the evidence is that they are wrong – the latest jobs numbers came it – numbers that include several weeks of shutdown – and they are remain good.
Further the difference between a good economy and a bad one is NOT in the corporate world – big business did very well under Obama, but SMB’s tanked. Trump’s policies have all been targeted primarily at SMB’s fromt he begining. There is no reason to beleive they are faltering.
“his lousy poll numbers have occurred even with a very solid economy.”
Obama won in 2012 – with numbers little different from Trump’s.
Bush won in 2004 – under much the same circumstances.
“Not that I am wishing for a bad economy or any other bad news but he certainly has set himself up for facing consequences of his go it alone instinctive decisions.”
Here you are absolutely right. And this is also why all of what I keep repeating about success in multiple domains matters.
All too many of you here are religious about “expertise” – do not get me wrong education and experince matter – they are clear predictors of success.
But the ultimate measure is SUCCESS. Past success is a far more significant predictor of future success than education or experience.
You might want to consider that when Trump says he knows more than the generals – that he might (and likely is) right.
First and foremost Trump is NOT sucked into the details.
Quite simply – SYRIA DOES NOT MATTER.
Frankly ISIS DOES NOT MATTER.
Most of what happens in the rest of the world DOES NOT MATTER.
It neither matters in US elections nor really matters as a factor effecting americans over the long run.
The US fundimentally LOST the vietnam war – and yet the entirety of asia has gone heavily capitalist.
The domino’s fell towards communism in Asia, and yet somehow capitalism, and in some cases democracy has triumphed.
The world is NOT changed by our use of military force. Asia did not become vastly more free because of our carriers and marines.
It did not change because of our foriegn policy.
The very positive changes in Asia and much of the world over the past 40 years have been driven by the people in those countries on their own, driven by the obvious failure of left policies everywhere, driven by even totalitarian regimes grasping that staying in power requires delivering a rising standard of living to the people – and we know what works to do that and what does not. Ideology does not trump reality.
Anyway, my point is that Trump’s “guts” are likely a better predictor of success than your experts. That may be hard to swallow – but the facts actually support it.
As I said at the start – experience and education are strong predictors of success,
But the best predictor of future success is past success.
I would suggest to you that Trump’s decision making is far less “instinctive” than you claim,
But even if I am wrong about that, it does not matter. What matters is whether he is right or not.
And I would remind you – not to focus so much on what he says – but what he does.
In 2020 if we are substantially out of Syria and Afghanistan – voters will care.
They will NOT care that a whole bunch of generals and neo-cons continue to claim it is a bad idea.
Rather that pondering nebulous fears – try making a realistic assessment of what could go wrong in Syria and how that would effect Trump.
The entire mideast could blow up in the next 2 years – and so long as that has no effect on americans Trump will still benefit.
And the likelyhood of the mideast blowing up completely is low.
Think about all the things that could ACTUALLY go wrong as a result of Trump’s decisions.
AND do not forget that whatever goes wrong – there will be reactions to it.
You worry about Russia – Russia is a more significant threat to all of europe than the US.
Trump has been taking advantage of that from before he was elected.
He is constantly attacking NATO.
You think this is stupid – it is actually quite smart. NATO is far more important to europe than the US.
You are worried about Russian agression – who is Russia going to threaten – New Jersey ? Or Poland ?
Absoolutely Trump is pissing off europeans.
And all kind of pundits claim that is weakening us in Europe.
How so ? It is irrelevant what Europe thinks of us.
Just about every aspect of US foreign policy that you think Trump is getting wrong and pissing of Europe is of much more importance to Europe than americans.
All Trump is doing is making that clear.
Absolutely europeans do not like that.
But it does not matter – THEY will see more immediate consequences of ALL Trump’s policies – not US. Whether it is Russia, Syria, Afghanistan – these are not really our problems.
And if they go badly – those nations far closer are going to have to deal with those problems.
You want the US to sanction Russia for bad behavior.
But most Russian bad behavior more directly effects Europe – and yet we can not get the europeans to confront Russia.
As Trump backs away from the US taking a role everywhere in the world – those who would lose as a consequence must step in.
Things are not going to go to hell in any huge way – because it is not in the interests of other nations who have far more at stake.
“the economy could not get much better but it could certainly contract”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/01/nonfarm-payrolls-january-2019.html
“the economy could not get much better but it could certainly contract”
U.S. Job Gains Show Employers Shrugged Off Government Shutdown.
“the economy could not get much better but it could certainly contract”
U.S. jobless claims dropped to lowest in 50 years
https://www.axios.com/unemployment-claims-drops-recession-a9e64a47-b76d-4d37-90fc-a04f13801bb8.html
Clear proof Trump is a Russian puppet!!!!!
https://apnews.com/13bee012befd4f989ab9ae108d1ca729
Clear proof of Collusion!!!!
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/428016-inside-doj-and-fbi-anatomy-of-a-bloodless-coup
More left wing nut nonsense debunked.
While there would have been nothing wrong with Trump Jr. calling Trump.
The left painted that as both what happened and as proof of malfeasance.
Only the phone records show – calls were not to Trump.
Is there a single claim regarding this garbage that is true.
If the GOP had spent two years ranting about classified material on Hillaries bathroom email server and in the end it was found that Clinton never used her personal mail server for government business – and there was never evidence that she did. That would be comparable to what has happened here.
–