Skip to content

Politics. The feel in your country.

1430431433435436635

Comments

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    Another thing that came out is "executive time". According to his schedule Trump doesn't start work until 11am everyday. Most days he's scheduled for "executive time" from 8-11, which seems to be a euphemism for watching TV and rage tweeting.

    Oh he also has executive time sprinkled several other times throughout the day as well.

    https://www.axios.com/scoop-trumps-secret-shrinking-schedule-1515364904-ab76374a-6252-4570-a804-942b3f851840.html

    On the one hand, this schedule reveals that he works approximately 2-3 hours/day. On the other hand, that is probably a net positive, all things considered.
    ThacoBellProont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    "I'm gonna play Russian Roulette with this gun that only has one bullet in it. Hopefully, I don't blow my brains out."
    Proont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963


    "I'm gonna play Russian Roulette with this gun that only has one bullet in it. Hopefully, I don't blow my brains out."
    So it seems like he's really worried about being interviewed by Mueller. So much so he's going to get us all killed.
    Proont
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305

    Grond0 said:

    Whether the vote should be counted depends on the electoral law. Personally it does look to me as though the intention was to vote Republican and where the intention is clear election officials may have discretion to include ballots. The law may not include that element of discretion though, so I also wouldn't have been surprised if this had been deemed to be a spoilt ballot.

    Note that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that all voting systems "notify the voter of overvotes (votes for more than the maximum number of selections allowed in a contest) and provide the voter a chance to correct these errors". It wouldn't surprise me if the judge in this case had reinstated this vote as a result of a failure to comply with this Act.

    I think that ballot is a mess. For one thing, that mark on the Democratic candidate's circle isn't even remotely explicit. But for another, hypothetically, even if this person voted for 3 other Republicans, it seems to me that there is at least a, say, 5% chance any given person may in fact, be voting for that one specific person regardless of party. But, beyond that, this ballot had Kindergarten-level instructions. If they can't be followed, I just don't see how we are supposed to recreate what some random person was thinking to decide an election.
    Two points about that.

    First, I think you're applying a criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) standard of evidence to the intention to vote. Civil matters are generally decided on the balance of probabilities and, if it were agreed that the ballot should be counted (which depends on exactly what the electoral law says), I think you agree which way it would be counted on that basis.

    Second, your general view is that the Democrats have tried being fair and found that doesn't work, so their appropriate response now is to match the Republicans in being unfair. Thus, if the Republicans steal one election through legal trickery in Florida, the Democrats should do the same here (if they were in a position to do so). I don't agree philosophically with that approach. I also suspect that would lead to even more entrenched positions over time (which would not be healthy to the country) and increased displays by all sides of the sort of corrupt behavior you regularly refer to by the current administration. As I have no emotional attachment to any US politicians it's of course much easier for me to take that sort of distanced position ...
    ThacoBellProont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2018
    Grond0 said:

    Grond0 said:

    Whether the vote should be counted depends on the electoral law. Personally it does look to me as though the intention was to vote Republican and where the intention is clear election officials may have discretion to include ballots. The law may not include that element of discretion though, so I also wouldn't have been surprised if this had been deemed to be a spoilt ballot.

    Note that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that all voting systems "notify the voter of overvotes (votes for more than the maximum number of selections allowed in a contest) and provide the voter a chance to correct these errors". It wouldn't surprise me if the judge in this case had reinstated this vote as a result of a failure to comply with this Act.

    I think that ballot is a mess. For one thing, that mark on the Democratic candidate's circle isn't even remotely explicit. But for another, hypothetically, even if this person voted for 3 other Republicans, it seems to me that there is at least a, say, 5% chance any given person may in fact, be voting for that one specific person regardless of party. But, beyond that, this ballot had Kindergarten-level instructions. If they can't be followed, I just don't see how we are supposed to recreate what some random person was thinking to decide an election.
    Two points about that.

    First, I think you're applying a criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) standard of evidence to the intention to vote. Civil matters are generally decided on the balance of probabilities and, if it were agreed that the ballot should be counted (which depends on exactly what the electoral law says), I think you agree which way it would be counted on that basis.

    Second, your general view is that the Democrats have tried being fair and found that doesn't work, so their appropriate response now is to match the Republicans in being unfair. Thus, if the Republicans steal one election through legal trickery in Florida, the Democrats should do the same here (if they were in a position to do so). I don't agree philosophically with that approach. I also suspect that would lead to even more entrenched positions over time (which would not be healthy to the country) and increased displays by all sides of the sort of corrupt behavior you regularly refer to by the current administration. As I have no emotional attachment to any US politicians it's of course much easier for me to take that sort of distanced position ...
    Well, I'm not really advocating Democrats do anything here. The only thing they could have done is ask for another recount, which they didn't. Beyond that, I just find that particular ballot to be a preposterous way to decide an election, in all honesty. IF the person who filled it out had explicitly scribbled out the mark on the Democratic candidate's circle, or put a big X through it (like the person actually did with the vote for the Governor, incidentally, which further complicates the intent of the whole ballot), I wouldn't be making nearly such a fuss about it. But the mark through the Democratic name on the State Congressional seat is one kind-of horizontal slash. How do we know that wasn't just the pencil grazing across that part of the ballot?? I'm being totally serious here, and not trying to grasp for straws. The vote for the Republican Governor has a filled-in circle AND an X through the middle of it. The race in question has two circles filled-in and a mark through the Democrat's name, but that isn't exactly an overwhelming attempt to indicate a mistake. Beyond that, the ballot is just an impossible mess, in my humble opinion. We're just making an assumption and calling it a concrete vote. Do I think there is a 95%+ chance this person meant to vote for the Republican?? Yes, I do. Is that good enough, given the instructions on the ballot?? I don't personally think so. I'd like to think I would say the same if the situation was reversed.

    The real question is how many ballots like this are being filled out and counted or not counted across the country. And I hope to god most of them AREN'T being counted. And even considering the problems I have with this ballot, that only TIED the race. Then we have to come to terms with the fact that a 21st century super-power has pockets of the country where tied elections are decided by someone picking a name out of a bowl, a prospect so preposterous that @semiticgod thought I was making some weird joke. My guess is this is the rule in local and state elections all over the country. It's.....crazy.

    But yeah, anyway. I just have legitimate problems with how messy the ballot is. If it was even moderately different or had even a smidgen more of a concrete example of intent to eliminate the Democratic vote, I would have to concede the point. I just think it's too much extrapolation to decide something so consequential. I am definitely NOT advocating Democrats start trying to toss out ballots on technicalities. I think this is more than a technicality. It seems more to me to just be a complete lack of ability to follow basic instructions. I know I proof-read my ballot 2 or 3 times before turning it in last year. It's not that much to ask, to be honest. And, as @Mathsorcerer said, the correct action here would have been to simply tell the poll worker they made a mistake and ask for another ballot, which they would have happily provided.

    As to the example I used about the Gore votes in Florida, while it was also just as obvious in that case what the LIKELY intent of the voters was, there was nothing that could be done about it, and there was no real avenue of argument for liberals to even make that point. I remember alot of anger back then along the lines of "how could those people have screwed up that badly", but, as I said, those ballots were WAY more confusing. Let me see if I can find an example:



    Again, there is no room for any votes to have been changed here for people who accidentally vote for Buchanan given the arrows. But WHY a ballot would be designed this way almost seems purposefully obtuse. But again, there was no recourse for this.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    semiticgoddessProont
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    re: the WSJ report mentioned in the Axios article....*laugh* No, they are not. Thinking that any of our military leaders are looking into a so-called "bloody nose" strategy towards the DPRK is akin to thinking that the Earth is flat, that NASA faked the Moon landing, and that Niburu is still on its way here.
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305

    The real question is how many ballots like this are being filled out and counted or not counted across the country. And I hope to god most of them AREN'T being counted. And even considering the problems I have with this ballot, that only TIED the race. Then we have to come to terms with the fact that a 21st century super-power has pockets of the country where tied elections are decided by someone picking a name out of a bowl, a prospect so preposterous that @semiticgod thought I was making some weird joke. My guess is this is the rule in local and state elections all over the country. It's.....crazy.

    But yeah, anyway. I just have legitimate problems with how messy the ballot is. If it was even moderately different or had even a smidgen more of a concrete example of intent to eliminate the Democratic vote, I would have to concede the point. I just think it's too much extrapolation to decide something so consequential.

    It's only consequential if you think of it as deciding the election - as opposed to being just one of thousands of votes. I have no problems in principle with including the ballot, although there are election systems that say that if there is any element of doubt the ballot is spoilt and shouldn't be counted and I wouldn't argue strongly against that. However, my preference would be a system where votes can be counted if the intention is clear (as in general I think you should be supporting people's ability to vote and not trying to constrain it). Irrespective of the simplicity of the instructions, filling in the wrong box on these things is an easy mistake to make - I've done so myself several times over the years doing things like exams and government forms. Where thousands of people are involved it is not realistic to expect that no mistakes will be made, it's just a question about what to do when mistakes are made.

    As for picking names out of a bowl I can't see any reason to object to that. In the UK in the event of a tie the result is determined by a random method chosen by the Returning Officer. Methods used in the past include drawing straws, names out of a hat, tossing a coin and cutting a pack of cards to see who gets a higher value. Out of that lot using the bowl seems like a pretty good option to me.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2018

    re: the WSJ report mentioned in the Axios article....*laugh* No, they are not. Thinking that any of our military leaders are looking into a so-called "bloody nose" strategy towards the DPRK is akin to thinking that the Earth is flat, that NASA faked the Moon landing, and that Niburu is still on its way here.

    I would assume you think the entire idea behind this information getting out is a bluff, which is reasonable. The question would be if bluffing someone as off-the-rocker as Kim Jong Un is a smart idea. My guess is people in Guam and Hawaii are alot less dismissive of the possible consequences, not to mention the entire population of Seoul. We've been playing a game of chicken with this issue since at least the beginning of the summer. How long do we want to keep walking the tightrope?? Why is this even being leaked when the South is attempting to engage in talks, likely because of the upcoming Olympics??

    For the record, of the 3 military men around Trump, I think only Mattis has his head on straight. Kelly and McMaster are exceedingly hawkish, and I don't trust either of them.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Grond0 said:

    Grond0 said:

    Whether the vote should be counted depends on the electoral law. Personally it does look to me as though the intention was to vote Republican and where the intention is clear election officials may have discretion to include ballots. The law may not include that element of discretion though, so I also wouldn't have been surprised if this had been deemed to be a spoilt ballot.

    Note that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that all voting systems "notify the voter of overvotes (votes for more than the maximum number of selections allowed in a contest) and provide the voter a chance to correct these errors". It wouldn't surprise me if the judge in this case had reinstated this vote as a result of a failure to comply with this Act.

    I think that ballot is a mess. For one thing, that mark on the Democratic candidate's circle isn't even remotely explicit. But for another, hypothetically, even if this person voted for 3 other Republicans, it seems to me that there is at least a, say, 5% chance any given person may in fact, be voting for that one specific person regardless of party. But, beyond that, this ballot had Kindergarten-level instructions. If they can't be followed, I just don't see how we are supposed to recreate what some random person was thinking to decide an election.
    Two points about that.

    First, I think you're applying a criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) standard of evidence to the intention to vote. Civil matters are generally decided on the balance of probabilities and, if it were agreed that the ballot should be counted (which depends on exactly what the electoral law says), I think you agree which way it would be counted on that basis.

    Second, your general view is that the Democrats have tried being fair and found that doesn't work, so their appropriate response now is to match the Republicans in being unfair. Thus, if the Republicans steal one election through legal trickery in Florida, the Democrats should do the same here (if they were in a position to do so). I don't agree philosophically with that approach. I also suspect that would lead to even more entrenched positions over time (which would not be healthy to the country) and increased displays by all sides of the sort of corrupt behavior you regularly refer to by the current administration. As I have no emotional attachment to any US politicians it's of course much easier for me to take that sort of distanced position ...
    The thing is how many other ballots were "tossed out?" Why does this one and only ballot get special treatment out of all the other ballots that didn't make the cut because someone did an "x" instead of filling in the circle completely.
    ThacoBellProont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    deltago said:

    Grond0 said:

    Grond0 said:

    Whether the vote should be counted depends on the electoral law. Personally it does look to me as though the intention was to vote Republican and where the intention is clear election officials may have discretion to include ballots. The law may not include that element of discretion though, so I also wouldn't have been surprised if this had been deemed to be a spoilt ballot.

    Note that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that all voting systems "notify the voter of overvotes (votes for more than the maximum number of selections allowed in a contest) and provide the voter a chance to correct these errors". It wouldn't surprise me if the judge in this case had reinstated this vote as a result of a failure to comply with this Act.

    I think that ballot is a mess. For one thing, that mark on the Democratic candidate's circle isn't even remotely explicit. But for another, hypothetically, even if this person voted for 3 other Republicans, it seems to me that there is at least a, say, 5% chance any given person may in fact, be voting for that one specific person regardless of party. But, beyond that, this ballot had Kindergarten-level instructions. If they can't be followed, I just don't see how we are supposed to recreate what some random person was thinking to decide an election.
    Two points about that.

    First, I think you're applying a criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) standard of evidence to the intention to vote. Civil matters are generally decided on the balance of probabilities and, if it were agreed that the ballot should be counted (which depends on exactly what the electoral law says), I think you agree which way it would be counted on that basis.

    Second, your general view is that the Democrats have tried being fair and found that doesn't work, so their appropriate response now is to match the Republicans in being unfair. Thus, if the Republicans steal one election through legal trickery in Florida, the Democrats should do the same here (if they were in a position to do so). I don't agree philosophically with that approach. I also suspect that would lead to even more entrenched positions over time (which would not be healthy to the country) and increased displays by all sides of the sort of corrupt behavior you regularly refer to by the current administration. As I have no emotional attachment to any US politicians it's of course much easier for me to take that sort of distanced position ...
    The thing is how many other ballots were "tossed out?" Why does this one and only ballot get special treatment out of all the other ballots that didn't make the cut because someone did an "x" instead of filling in the circle completely.
    I hadn't even contemplated this. Good point.
    Proont
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    I agree it would be helpful to know - and information about spoiled ballots is normally published in elections. If there were similar cases to this one which were not counted then the Democrats would have a good reason to appeal.
    ThacoBellProont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited January 2018

    re: the WSJ report mentioned in the Axios article....*laugh* No, they are not. Thinking that any of our military leaders are looking into a so-called "bloody nose" strategy towards the DPRK is akin to thinking that the Earth is flat, that NASA faked the Moon landing, and that Niburu is still on its way here.

    You assume that the person making the decisions is rational. He is not. He's a very stable genius.

    With this resume...

    image
    Post edited by smeagolheart on
    ThacoBellProont
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037

    I would assume you think the entire idea behind this information getting out is a bluff, which is reasonable. The question would be if bluffing someone as off-the-rocker as Kim Jong Un is a smart idea. My guess is people in Guam and Hawaii are alot less dismissive of the possible consequences, not to mention the entire population of Seoul. We've been playing a game of chicken with this issue since at least the beginning of the summer. How long do we want to keep walking the tightrope?? Why is this even being leaked when the South is attempting to engage in talks, likely because of the upcoming Olympics??

    Even as a bluff tactic this would be stupid--KJU is crazy enough to risk a first strike by saying such things. On the other hand, perhaps Trump is, for reasons which defy description, trying to set up a situation where Xi Jinping can step in and appear as a peaceful mediator to calm tensions on both sides. Beijing will *not* allow Pyongyang to launch nuclear weapons regardless of what Trump might say--it would be bad for business and introduce regional instability.

    You assume that the person making the decisions is rational. He is not. He's a very stable genius.

    Truthfully, I don't think this "bloody nose" concepts is actually a Trump concept even though it sounds like something he would do. I suspect someone mentioned it in a meeting and he thought it might be a good thing to try. Naturally, he will probably take credit for it because he thinks it will make him look "ballsy".
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    I would assume you think the entire idea behind this information getting out is a bluff, which is reasonable. The question would be if bluffing someone as off-the-rocker as Kim Jong Un is a smart idea. My guess is people in Guam and Hawaii are alot less dismissive of the possible consequences, not to mention the entire population of Seoul. We've been playing a game of chicken with this issue since at least the beginning of the summer. How long do we want to keep walking the tightrope?? Why is this even being leaked when the South is attempting to engage in talks, likely because of the upcoming Olympics??

    Even as a bluff tactic this would be stupid--KJU is crazy enough to risk a first strike by saying such things. On the other hand, perhaps Trump is, for reasons which defy description, trying to set up a situation where Xi Jinping can step in and appear as a peaceful mediator to calm tensions on both sides. Beijing will *not* allow Pyongyang to launch nuclear weapons regardless of what Trump might say--it would be bad for business and introduce regional instability.

    You assume that the person making the decisions is rational. He is not. He's a very stable genius.

    Truthfully, I don't think this "bloody nose" concepts is actually a Trump concept even though it sounds like something he would do. I suspect someone mentioned it in a meeting and he thought it might be a good thing to try. Naturally, he will probably take credit for it because he thinks it will make him look "ballsy".
    I read another article about this in Business Insider. As I suspected, it is Mattis and Tillerson (who, being a former oil executive, isn't interested in a global financial meltdown) who are pumping the brakes, and McMaster being hawkish. Fact is, Trump picked Mattis because he liked his nickname, "Mad Dog". It's not actually indicative of who he is. Thank god, in this case, Trump's reality-TV casting of his cabinet accidentally fit this guy in. Because he sure as hell isn't gonna ever listen to Tillerson again.
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Pretty good interview with Wolff



    I agree about the sourcing. In the foreword the author makes vague references to sources. I read the first chapter on my commute and it reads more like a dramatization than an honest account of facts.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited January 2018

    Pretty good interview with Wolff



    I agree about the sourcing. In the foreword the author makes vague references to sources. I read the first chapter on my commute and it reads more like a dramatization than an honest account of facts.

    The book may be bizarre but apparently it is real and Wolff had access to the Trump Whitehouse. As has been described, there are different factions that compete with each other and if Reince Preibuses camp saw Steve Bannon talking to Wolff then after he was done there they would approach him to make sure he got their side of the story.

    Former top White House advisor Sebastián Gorka PhD accidently confirmed that Wolff had top access.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/367981-gorka-says-he-was-told-to-cooperate-with-wolff-book

    "So, when I met Michael Wolff in [former chief of staff] Reince Priebus' office, where he was waiting to talk [former chief strategist] Steve Bannon and after I had been told to also speak to him for his book, my attitude was polite but firm: 'Thanks but no thanks'," Gorka wrote.
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037

    The book may be bizarre but apparently it is real and Wolff had access to the Trump Whitehouse. As has been described, there are different factions that compete with each other and if Reince Preibuses camp saw Steve Bannon talking to Wolff then after he was done there they would approach him to make sure he got their side of the story.

    I believe this because it is indicative of Trump's executive/managerial style--he like to create teams then pit the teams against each other, thinking that the more they try to undercut and out-do each other the better they will become. This also tends to foster at least lip-service loyalty to Turmp--one way to out-do the opposing team is to become more sycophantic to Trump, praising him every chance you get--but it doesn't foster any sense of "we are all on the same team" because you *aren't* on the same team.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    The book may be bizarre but apparently it is real and Wolff had access to the Trump Whitehouse. As has been described, there are different factions that compete with each other and if Reince Preibuses camp saw Steve Bannon talking to Wolff then after he was done there they would approach him to make sure he got their side of the story.

    I believe this because it is indicative of Trump's executive/managerial style--he like to create teams then pit the teams against each other, thinking that the more they try to undercut and out-do each other the better they will become. This also tends to foster at least lip-service loyalty to Turmp--one way to out-do the opposing team is to become more sycophantic to Trump, praising him every chance you get--but it doesn't foster any sense of "we are all on the same team" because you *aren't* on the same team.
    There is actually a more simple reason, which is also revealed in the book. He has no attention span. He gets bored within minutes. He craves chaos swirling around him at all times for the in the moment stimulation.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2018
    Wow, Dianne Feinstein basically told Chuck Grassley to go screw himself, as within the last hour, she released the entire Fusion GPS testimony transcript. By this evening, we'll have a good idea of why Republicans were hiding it.

    Edit: still unpacking this, but the biggest takeaway is this: Republicans have known for a LONG time their narrative about Fusion, Steele, and the dossier has been bullshit. In particular, even the cursory excerpts I've seen make Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley's attack on Christopher Steele out to be nothing but a political hit-job. They are all in on the cover-up. They never intended to let the public see this:
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    ThacoBellProont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited January 2018
    85 year old sheriff Joe arpaio, fresh off his pardon for federal felony crimes by President Trump, has announced he will run for Jeff flake's senate seat in AZ.

    I profiled earlier in this thread how he has a long ugly history. There's things like criminally negligent deaths, overt racism and racist statements, and ignoring and not investigating hundreds of cases of sexual abuse of children over several years. And there's millions of dollars of unnecessary court settlements for flagrant violations of the law. Like he would be officially told not to do something, he'd do it, then the department would be sued and have to pay millions of dollars in settlements. This happened repeatedly.

    He hasn't won the Republican primary, yet, but the Republican party has found the one guy that can surpass Roy Moore as a terrible person to run for a US senate seat. I mean it seems that Roy Moore was "only" a religious nut and multiple child molester who ignored federal law while Arpaio also ignored federal law and aided and abetted child sexual abuse and also got people literally killed.

    Stay classy Rs...
    FinneousPJThacoBellsemiticgoddessProont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2018
    There are many reasons to be interested in this testimony of the Fusion GPS head today, but the main thing that sticks out to me is the following:

    As I mentioned in the previous post, the FBI didn't start looking into Trump's campaign because of what Christopher Steele brought them. They took Steele seriously because what he was telling them was matching what they had already heard from other sources, including (apparently) someone in or close to Trump's campaign or business (upon further clarification, this appears to be a reference to Papadopoulos). But even that isn't the main issue. We then learn that Steele stopped talking to the FBI after the story appeared in the NY Times on October 31st 2016 that said the FBI saw no links between Trump's campaign and Russia. Because Steele had been personally talking to the FBI about this issue and, indeed, had actually personally briefed the NY Times two weeks before they ran that story. Steele immediately smelled a rat, was convinced someone in the FBI was compromised, and stopped feeding them his information.

    So how did this happen?? During the last two weeks of the campaign, there were two major narratives. #1 was that Hillary's emails were being looked at again. But #2 was that Trump was not under FBI investigation. But his campaign WAS under FBI investigation. Both Comey and Simpson of Fusion GPS have said so, when lying to Congress would be a criminal act. So voters went to the polls with a wholly inaccurate view of what was actually going on.

    I am not someone who screams "fake news". The NY Times didn't make up the story that said Trump's campaign wasn't under investigation for Russian contacts. They were clearly fed that information by someone in the FBI who wanted that to be the narrative. In much the same way Judith Miller printed everything coming out of Dick Cheney's office about WMD in the ramp-up to the Iraq War. I will also point out that, unlike most stories that make errors about the Trump Administration, there has not been a single correction issued about the October 31st story that ran in the NY Times. Not only hasn't there been a correction, there hasn't even been an attempt at an explanation of how that story went to print. Because it was literally the opposite of what was true. Almost certainly because someone (or multiple people) in the FBI were the sources, and were specifically planting the story to frame the narrative in the last days of the campaign.

    Again, the story wasn't "fake", but the NY Times was taken for a ride by their sources, and those sources had a CLEAR agenda. And those sources, based on the testimony Feinstein made public today, were almost certainly people within the FBI itself. Because Christopher Steele smelled a rat the moment he read the article.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    ThacoBellGrond0Proont
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037

    So how did this happen?? During the last two weeks of the campaign, there were two major narratives. #1 was that Hillary's emails were being looked at again. But #2 was that Trump was not under FBI investigation. But his campaign WAS under FBI investigation. Both Comey and Simpson of Fusion GPS have said so, when lying to Congress would be a criminal act. So voters went to the polls with a wholly inaccurate view of what was actually going on.

    Voters *never* have a wholly accurate picture of campaigns or candidates before going to vote. How is this any different? More importantly, though, is why anyone should care. Is there anything about this story that is going to turn a Trump supporter into "not a Trump supporter"? No one seriously thinks that any of the big fish are actually going to be found guilty of anything, do they? Even if that were going to happen, the toner on the conviction document wouldn't be dry before a pardon is given out.

    If, as the claim is being made, Trump were being blackmailed by shadowy figures from Russia while he was a candidate are those same shadowy figures still blackmailing him now? If so, they don't seem to be making any real demands of Trump because for the most part he doesn't actually *do* anything. Of course, that may be what they want--inaction; however, that seems unlikely. If I were blackmailing someone who winds up as President of the United States I am going to call in that favor for something very valuable as soon as possible. On the other hand, if they aren't blackmailing him then what's the problem?

    Given our history of interfering in other people's elections, if Russia really did interfere in our election I would chalk that up to a case of "payback".
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963

    So how did this happen?? During the last two weeks of the campaign, there were two major narratives. #1 was that Hillary's emails were being looked at again. But #2 was that Trump was not under FBI investigation. But his campaign WAS under FBI investigation. Both Comey and Simpson of Fusion GPS have said so, when lying to Congress would be a criminal act. So voters went to the polls with a wholly inaccurate view of what was actually going on.

    Voters *never* have a wholly accurate picture of campaigns or candidates before going to vote. How is this any different?
    True but you hope that they do something close to what they say they are going to do. Most politicians have resumes of years of positions you can look back on and either see how they've maintained or shifted positions. Trump did not really have that as he had positions all over the map of being a prochoice Democrat and now a prolife Republican for example. So I guess in that case you hope he's going to do what he's currently saying.


    More importantly, though, is why anyone should care. Is there anything about this story that is going to turn a Trump supporter into "not a Trump supporter"? No one seriously thinks that any of the big fish are actually going to be found guilty of anything, do they? Even if that were going to happen, the toner on the conviction document wouldn't be dry before a pardon is given out.

    Will new perspectives or developments turn Trump supporters away from him? Yes, this has happened. Not to all but he has lost support even among fox news viewers going from like 80% approval just after the election down to like 50%. And his overall approval ratings based on polling has dropped from its low baselines as well. Sure, you won't hear kellyanne Conway or Mike pence express doubt or whatever but many regular people can change their minds.

    I'm not so sure about pardons. It depends on the severity of the crimes and legal implications. Let's say Trump Jr. actually did something awful and murders someone. Yes that's an over the top example of something clearly wrong. Something non defensible. And then Trump pardons him. How do things go on when the government is so corrupt that there is no rule of law and a group of people can do whatever they want free of consequences? I'd argue people would not stand for it. It may not be like a French Revolution revolt but the country would not be the same. I think people would not tolerate it.

    BUT what is more likely is that whatever crimes are uncovered there will be a defense. Murder? No it was self defense and it was Hillarys fault! And the crime won't be murder it will be something more like financial crimes or treason either of which will be spun as something else by right wing media. Can Trump get away with a pardon in that case with muddier waters? I'm not so sure. Either way - with a clear violation of law or a muddied one it is not cool to circumvent the rule of law for no reason other than the guy who is caught is your relative. So it would be damaging to the foundation of the USA.

    There's also another legal aspect in that if you accept a pardon it is not applicable to state crimes. Additionally, and I'm no expert her, but I've heard you can't take the fifth ammendment in state crimes because you've accepted a pardon and that is an admission of guilt. Like if you are not guilty, fight your legal battles and get exonerated that way - a pardon is only for once your legal options are out to provide you with relief for overly harsh circumstances.


    If, as the claim is being made, Trump were being blackmailed by shadowy figures from Russia while he was a candidate are those same shadowy figures still blackmailing him now? If so, they don't seem to be making any real demands of Trump because for the most part he doesn't actually *do* anything. Of course, that may be what they want--inaction; however, that seems unlikely. If I were blackmailing someone who winds up as President of the United States I am going to call in that favor for something very valuable as soon as possible. On the other hand, if they aren't blackmailing him then what's the problem?

    Given our history of interfering in other people's elections, if Russia really did interfere in our election I would chalk that up to a case of "payback".

    Yes we've interfered in other elections specifically central and South America. Two wrongs don't make a right. We should not be interfering and we should not be interfered with. And the major issue going forward is that they succeeded in meddling once, they will absolutely do it again. It is not a one time thing. French, German and the UK brexit votes have all been affected. And it will happen again its an ongoing problem.
    MathsorcererThacoBellProont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    The testimony reveals a key FACT. Every elected Republican in this country has been screaming from high heaven for months on end that the dossier was a corrupt Democratic plot and that it was the basis for the Mueller probe. It's been their only argument. That transcript blows that idea to smithereens, chopped up like Chucky at the end of "Child's Play 3". But what is worse is that Senate Republicans have KNOWN this was 100% false since this testimony took place, and then attempted to hide the evidence that they knew from the public at all costs. At the same time, they referred Christopher Steele, a man who did nothing but report findings he found alarming to the FBI, for criminal charges. And again, I go back to the question I have been asking for a year that basically no one has ever answered. If there is nothing nefarious that went on, what can POSSIBLY explain the extraordinary lengths the Administration and, indeed, the entire Republican leadership in Congress are going to to derail and stop the investigation?? The answer of course is that there IS no other explanation. These types of measures would never need to be taken to protect people they believe to be innocent.
    ThacoBellProont
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366

    The testimony reveals a key FACT. Every elected Republican in this country has been screaming from high heaven for months on end that the dossier was a corrupt Democratic plot and that it was the basis for the Mueller probe. It's been their only argument. That transcript blows that idea to smithereens, chopped up like Chucky at the end of "Child's Play 3". But what is worse is that Senate Republicans have KNOWN this was 100% false since this testimony took place, and then attempted to hide the evidence that they knew from the public at all costs. At the same time, they referred Christopher Steele, a man who did nothing but report findings he found alarming to the FBI, for criminal charges. And again, I go back to the question I have been asking for a year that basically no one has ever answered. If there is nothing nefarious that went on, what can POSSIBLY explain the extraordinary lengths the Administration and, indeed, the entire Republican leadership in Congress are going to to derail and stop the investigation?? The answer of course is that there IS no other explanation. These types of measures would never need to be taken to protect people they believe to be innocent.

    Unless defending yourself from a witch hunt. Just sayin'.

    Nobody with power in politics or business is squeaky clean and I doubt anybody likes people snooping around in their dirty laundry. It could well be that there's nothing to the Russia thing and still have these people doing a dipsy-do because there are other things in their background they don't want on display. I think the whole collusion thing is starting to turn into a 'push the stick into the termite nest and see what comes out' kind of thing now. The media is too invested to let this thing go away...
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    edited January 2018
    Not everyone trusts law enforcement to do the right thing. Although it seems odd that it's the GOP of all groups that has so little faith in the FBI's neutrality and honesty.

    I don't think many people in the Trump administration are guilty of anything, and fewer still would have actually colluded with Russia (though Trump Jr. apparently was willing to). But considering how much the left has been stressing the importance of the Russia investigation and the possibility of collusion, the Trump administration believes it to be a threat regardless. A lot of Democrats have treated the investigation as the one thing that will remove Trump from office, and so a lot of Republicans have drawn the understandable but incorrect conclusion that that's the investigation's purpose. In reality, the FBI's just trying to investigate possible crimes. They did it for Clinton and now they're doing it for Trump.

    You can be innocent of any wrongdoing and still get nervous under scrutiny. Though I'm not sure "nervous" is the right descriptor for the Trump administration's reaction to the Mueller investigation.
    Balrog99Proont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2018
    I'm trying to imagine what sort of politcal situation we'd be in if Hillary had won, she had fired Comey while he was in the middle of another email investgation, and had then done a televised interview in which she had ADMITTED to firing him to end the investigation. But all that appears before my eyes is visions of someone burning at the stake. If this scenario had taken place, she would have been impeached 6 months ago. And everyone knows that. But I digress.....
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    bleusteelsemiticgoddessThacoBellProont
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366

    I'm trying to imagine what sort of politcal situation we'd be in if Hillary had won, she had fired Comey while he was in the middle of another email investgation, and had then done a televised interview in which she had ADMITTED to firing him to end the investigation. But all that appears before my eyes is visions of someone burning at the stake. If this scenario had taken place, she would have been impeached 6 months ago. And everyone knows that. But I digress.....

    Exactly why neither one of these idiots should have been our candidates to begin with. I'm starting to think maybe we should just have a big lottery of all legal voters and the winner (loser?) becomes president. Some homeless dude from New Orleans might even do a better job...
    Proont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Balrog99 said:

    I'm trying to imagine what sort of politcal situation we'd be in if Hillary had won, she had fired Comey while he was in the middle of another email investgation, and had then done a televised interview in which she had ADMITTED to firing him to end the investigation. But all that appears before my eyes is visions of someone burning at the stake. If this scenario had taken place, she would have been impeached 6 months ago. And everyone knows that. But I digress.....

    Exactly why neither one of these idiots should have been our candidates to begin with. I'm starting to think maybe we should just have a big lottery of all legal voters and the winner (loser?) becomes president. Some homeless dude from New Orleans might even do a better job...
    At least that homeless guy wouldn't be stacking the government with climate change deniers and billionaires. I imagine the homeless guy would not be so greedy as a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich. Maybe he'd be happy with a hundred bucks.
    Balrog99ThacoBellProont
This discussion has been closed.