Monoxide

The Trump Presidency (take 2)

128,524 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

SHE didnt need scrutiny but the heightened scrutiny makes it far more likely that these sorts of pock marks will come up. Because the stakes change. I dont think vindictiveness saps credibility, TBH. I think its 100% reasonable to expect someone who has been wronged to be vindictive toward the wrong doer. I think the two things can exist on separate scales.

 

 

My former boss did me very wrong. He took advantage of my hard work and I ended up standing up for myself at one point and got fired.  Now I would never track down where he works now and tell his current employer or employees what he did and how he treated me and others, but if I saw that he was running for mayor or the senate, I would certainly be compelled to speak up and let others know what kind of man I know him to be. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thesouphead said:

 

 

My former boss did me very wrong. He took advantage of my hard work and I ended up standing up for myself at one point and got fired.  Now I would never track down where he works now and tell his current employer or employees what he did and how he treated me and others, but if I saw that he was running for mayor or the senate, I would certainly be compelled to speak up and let others know what kind of man I know him to be. 

 

 

I think this is the reality for most folks when it comes to rivalry. 

Frankly, you've gotta be a little sick in the head to take your adulthood rivalry beyond being pissed off at your rival and maybe getting in an argument on sight. But to follow a dude/lady around because they wronged you X years ago? And to try to tear them down/negatively impact their lives? Thats some weird behavior, dude...

Image result for steve buscemi billy madison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gazoo said:

I’m a former Bill Clinton democrat with many liberal positions. Bill Clinton was a very good president and democrats were moderate back then. They stood for border security, strong military, safety nets for poor, they admired America, fiscal responsibility etc. 

My esteemed former democrat party had abondoned me with radical policies and identity politics. 

I despise the establishment Republican Party every bit as much as I do the radicalized democrat party. 

I am an independent and a man with no party 

 

The Delusion Party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Honestly, there are no problems here. The two things arent at odds. 

"If you want to get information, sure, read the New York Times, but read it with your eyes open. With a critical mind. The Times is full of facts."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

1) Kavanaugh was nominated....

2) Kavanaugh was nominated before the video you posted.....

3) You realize the same "fill in the gaps" principles you're espousing in the Kavanaugh-Ford context would make Trump look like Vlad Lenin if applied consistently, right?

I cant tell if you're in the tank or being intellectually dishonest. I guess I have to conclude the former is more likely than the latter. 

Oh, he's in the tank up to the neck. His only debate tactic is to try to wax vapidly so repeatedly so as to drone opposing viewpoints out.

You're obviously teaching above his level of understanding, but I admire your tenacity.

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

SHE didnt need scrutiny but the heightened scrutiny makes it far more likely that these sorts of pock marks will come up. Because the stakes change. I dont think vindictiveness saps credibility, TBH. I think its 100% reasonable to expect someone who has been wronged to be vindictive toward the wrong doer. I think the two things can exist on separate scales. And while one can certain affect the other, I dont think it has to be that concrete. If a witness were to say to me "I WAS mad. I AM mad. I dont want to see him win. Because he did XYZ to me and I kept my mouth shut for years but now I can't sit by and watch" I would find it very credible. Not locked in, obviously. But honest and credible. 

The question will always be the truth. Here, the truth is probably unknowable, which is unfortunate. On one hand, maybe thats not fair to Kavanaugh, who is standing on the precipice of the greatest legal accomplishment an American lawyer could hope for. But on the other, if these allegations are remotely true, maybe Kavanaugh should be thankful that he's had such an elite-accomplishment life up to this point? Maybe Ford essentially gifted him with 30 years of silence, during which he had served in roles that no run-of-the-mill American citizen could dream of, let alone accomplish. 

 

Here's the thing, though -- HOW do the stakes change?  Kavanaugh is already a federal Judge.  Being on the Supreme Court is huge, I don't mean to downplay that. But it's not like he's some nobody about to be elected President and this is the first time he's had a chance to wield power and shape policy.  He's already on the feeder court to the USSC.  His stakes don't change.  He has a lifetime appointment and she's simply denying him one to a higher court, if in fact it even accomplishes that much, and it probably won't.

If the answer is the stakes change because of the balance of the Court, etc., that is precisely the political calculation that I think raises questions about her credibility in the minds of many.  And the concern I have there is more of a problem if the allegations are true.  It gives Kavanaugh an easy out, and people who tend to support him an easy out.  And that means he probably gets confirmed anyway (absent some additional information coming out that corroborates her story further, or one of the two men she said were there changing their story, or Kavanaugh himself changing his story).

So what it ends up accomplishing is a cloud on his reputation and hers.  And not too much more than that, honestly.  If the allegations are true, I don't think that's fair.  Obviously, if they're not true, it's not fair anyway.  My main concern is what if they are?  What if he did it?  Because the allegations are largely unprovable, she has failed to keep him off the Court, and at best tarnished is reputation.  Last I checked, Justice Thomas' opinions are still law.  If true, that strikes me as a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

Here's the thing, though -- HOW do the stakes change?  Kavanaugh is already a federal Judge.  Being on the Supreme Court is huge, I don't mean to downplay that

 

You are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

"If you want to get information, sure, read the New York Times, but read it with your eyes open. With a critical mind. The Times is full of facts."

 

  Every debate a fundamentalist Christian?  You’re trying to debate reason and they keep using quotes from Jesus to support their position? Not very persuasive, is it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

I'd expect such wisdom from a successful businessman like yourself. 

Wanna meet at the Radison for a cocktail? 

[moves to Larry's side of the table and puts arms around him]  Do you mind if I sit over here?

...

I'm sorry, I... I shouldn't have done this. I shouldn't have done this, I shouldn't have... I thought we'd have a really terrific time.  You are such a super lady.  And I'm, I'm so lonely.

 

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike Yanagita said:

[moves to Larry's side of the table and puts arms around him]  Do you mind if I sit over here?

...

I'm sorry, I... I shouldn't have done this. I shouldn't have done this, I shouldn't have... I thought we'd have a really terrific time.  You are such a super lady.  And I'm, I'm so lonely.

 

and then Ben Roethlisberger escorts Larry back to his room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump delays release of Russia probe documents

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said documents from the federal Russia probe would not immediately be released, just days after he ordered them to be made public, citing concerns by the U.S. Justice Department that doing so could harm the investigation.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump departs the White House, to travel to Nevada for a campaign rally, in Washington, U.S., September 20, 2018. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Trump, on Twitter, said the department’s inspector general would review the documents “on an expedited basis” and would “move quickly.”

“In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary,” Trump wrote, after earlier demanding the release of documents in the ongoing investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Representatives for the department’s Office of the Inspector General did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, welcomed Trump’s remarks.

“Thankfully it seems that saner minds have prevailed, at least for the time being. This underscores why the President should be relying on the expertise and advice of intelligence and law enforcement professionals, not cable news hosts,” Warner told Reuters via email.

Trump had called for the documents’ declassification on Monday in his latest effort to cast doubt on the probe, which has loomed over his presidency. The move prompted sharp criticism from Democrats and others that Trump was abusing his power and that he and his allies were politicizing the probe to protect the White House just weeks before November’s congressional elections.

Trump has denied colluding with Russia and Moscow has denied meddling in the 2016 election, though major U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered.

In his Tweet, Trump said he met with Justice Department officials about the documents, and that Justice officials said releasing the material “may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe.”

“Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release,” he wrote.

Among the documents Trump wants to release are parts of an application to a special court for electronic surveillance of former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page, and three applications for renewal of the surveillance.

Trump casts doubt on Kavanaugh accuser

In July, the Justice Department and FBI made public heavily redacted versions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court applications involving Page.

Cryptic clues in these reports indicate that a key FBI informant, identified as Source#1, is in fact Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who compiled a controversial “Dossier” charting alleged Trump links to Russia.

People familiar with Steele’s career and the British government’s views said Britain was indeed concerned that its official secrets could be revealed if too much of the surveillance application material were declassified and released.

On Twitter, Trump wrote that he believed Justice Inspector Michael Horowitz “will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at).”

While it was unclear what Trump was referring to, a source with knowledge of the matter said Horowitz’s office also is conducting a review of the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation on Trump campaign associates’ ties to Russia, which began in July 2016.

Additional reporting by Sarah Lynch, Mark Hosenball and Warren Strobel; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Dan Grebler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HolyMoses said:

  Every debate a fundamentalist Christian?  You’re trying to debate reason and they keep using quotes from Jesus to support their position? Not very persuasive, is it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI and Citibank are reportedly investigating a suspiciously large 2016 payment from the Russian embassy to its ambassador to the US

 

Examiners at Citibank and investigators from the FBI are probing what they say is a suspiciously large transaction in 2016 from Russia's embassy in the US to Sergey Kislyak, Russia's ambassador at the time, BuzzFeed News reported on Wednesday.

Citing new documents, BuzzFeed News reported that the investigators were examining a check from the Russian embassy marked "payroll" for $120,000, believed to be Kislyak's lump-sum 2016 salary, deposited in November 2016 shortly after Donald Trump won the presidential election.

The $120,000 payment was more than twice Kislyak's annual salary in each of the previous two years, according to the report. BuzzFeed News reported that a branch manager at the embassy said the payment was a salary but that Citibank financial examiners were unable to independently verify that claim.

Federal law-enforcement officials, including the special counsel Robert Mueller, have been investigating what they say are several suspicious financial transactions made by the Russian embassy, BuzzFeed News first reported in January. But the unusually large payment to Kislyak carries additional significance given his contacts with Trump campaign officials around that time, though there is no indication that it was related to those contacts.

Jared Kushner, a senior White House adviser and Trump's son-in-law, enlisted Kislyak in an effort to set up a back channel for secure communications between the Trump transition team and the Russian government using diplomatic resources in December 2016, though one does not appear to have materialized.

President Donald Trump and Kislyak in the Oval Office on May 10, 2017. Russian Embassy

Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, last year pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about multiple conversations he had with Kislyak in December 2016. As part of his plea deal, Flynn became a cooperating witness in Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 US election, whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow, and whether Trump obstructed justice over the course of the probe.

Flynn and Kislyak spoke on the phone multiple times in the period between when the Obama administration announced sanctions on Russia over its election interference and when Russia decided against retaliatory measures — a decision Kislyak told Flynn was made at the Trump team's request, prosecutors said in Flynn's charging document.

In March 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation after failing to disclose in his confirmation hearings a September 2016 meeting with Kislyak.

Kislyak did not respond to BuzzFeed News' request for comment, and the Russian embassy did not comment on the specific transaction, saying only that it did not violate any laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Here's the thing, though -- HOW do the stakes change?  Kavanaugh is already a federal Judge.  Being on the Supreme Court is huge, I don't mean to downplay that. But it's not like he's some nobody about to be elected President and this is the first time he's had a chance to wield power and shape policy.  He's already on the feeder court to the USSC.  His stakes don't change.  He has a lifetime appointment and she's simply denying him one to a higher court, if in fact it even accomplishes that much, and it probably won't.

If the answer is the stakes change because of the balance of the Court, etc., that is precisely the political calculation that I think raises questions about her credibility in the minds of many.  And the concern I have there is more of a problem if the allegations are true.  It gives Kavanaugh an easy out, and people who tend to support him an easy out.  And that means he probably gets confirmed anyway (absent some additional information coming out that corroborates her story further, or one of the two men she said were there changing their story, or Kavanaugh himself changing his story).

So what it ends up accomplishing is a cloud on his reputation and hers.  And not too much more than that, honestly.  If the allegations are true, I don't think that's fair.  Obviously, if they're not true, it's not fair anyway.  My main concern is what if they are?  What if he did it?  Because the allegations are largely unprovable, she has failed to keep him off the Court, and at best tarnished is reputation.  Last I checked, Justice Thomas' opinions are still law.  If true, that strikes me as a problem.

The stakes change because most Americans don't know a thing about federal judges. I work in the field, am admitted to a Federal Court and I know MAYBE a half dozen federal judges at the District/Circuit level off the of the top of my head. Unless you're a Court-wonk, you arent paying attention to the federal judiciary. Is it likely that Ford is a Court-watcher given her career and field of study? Not very, IMO. Its certainly possible she's followed him throughout his career but not at all a locked-in thing. 

To be candid, I once had a college interaction which later resulted in some unsavory allegations being made against me. Not in any sort of formal way but in the way that things get around similar social circles in small college towns. The girl who felt aggrieved is still friends with another couple with whom I remain VERY GOOD FRIENDS. I talk to the husband every day. HIs wife and my wife are pals and are going cider-drinkin' tomorrow. This young lady and I are still in the same social circle! Yet I dont know where she lives, I have no idea what she does for a living. I think she's married but may be divorced. I've seen her a couple times in the last 15 years and been polite but no nothing at all about her. So its not all that surprising to me that Ford would sort of "out of sight out of mind" Kavanaugh...even if he did this. 

As to the broader questions of your dissatisfaction with the process....I share them. This IS messy. There is a much greater than zero chance that Kavanaugh gets confirmed next week. If true, thats sad. And maybe it doesnt serve either individual's interests very well. But the alternative is to simply eat it. If the allegations arent true (or more accurately if they're concocted) then no harm, no foul. Kavanaugh's reputation is likely cemented already with folks who support him and oppose him. If the allegations ARE true or have some foundation, eating it and watching a dude who wronged you "win" doesnt seem like the best option either. 

Life is messy man. Unsatisfying outcomes are the norm. And that what makes the death of nuance and critical thinking skills so much more tragic. Because are trying to apply multiple two-pole frameworks to a reality that doesnt work in that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Billy Ocean said:

Why do baseball managers wear uniforms do we do this in any other sport?

I think it's a holdover from the days of player manages that used to be really common in its early days.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

The stakes change because most Americans don't know a thing about federal judges. I work in the field, am admitted to a Federal Court and I know MAYBE a half dozen federal judges at the District/Circuit level off the of the top of my head. Unless you're a Court-wonk, you arent paying attention to the federal judiciary. Is it likely that Ford is a Court-watcher given her career and field of study? Not very, IMO. Its certainly possible she's followed him throughout his career but not at all a locked-in thing. 

To be candid, I once had a college interaction which later resulted in some unsavory allegations being made against me. Not in any sort of formal way but in the way that things get around similar social circles in small college towns. The girl who felt aggrieved is still friends with another couple with whom I remain VERY GOOD FRIENDS. I talk to the husband every day. HIs wife and my wife are pals and are going cider-drinkin' tomorrow. This young lady and I are still in the same social circle! Yet I dont know where she lives, I have no idea what she does for a living. I think she's married but may be divorced. I've seen her a couple times in the last 15 years and been polite but no nothing at all about her. So its not all that surprising to me that Ford would sort of "out of sight out of mind" Kavanaugh...even if he did this. 

As to the broader questions of your dissatisfaction with the process....I share them. This IS messy. There is a much greater than zero chance that Kavanaugh gets confirmed next week. If true, thats sad. And maybe it doesnt serve either individual's interests very well. But the alternative is to simply eat it. If the allegations arent true (or more accurately if they're concocted) then no harm, no foul. Kavanaugh's reputation is likely cemented already with folks who support him and oppose him. If the allegations ARE true or have some foundation, eating it and watching a dude who wronged you "win" doesnt seem like the best option either. 

Life is messy man. Unsatisfying outcomes are the norm. And that what makes the death of nuance and critical thinking skills so much more tragic. Because are trying to apply multiple two-pole frameworks to a reality that doesnt work in that way. 

But she DID know he was a Federal Judge.  She says she mentioned to her therapist (or someone, I don't recall specifically) that she thought he was going to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

That's part of her claim.  I mean, I get your point in general, but with regard to this specific case, she knew.  Undisputedly.

Share this post


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

"If you want to get information, sure, read the New York Times, but read it with your eyes open. With a critical mind. The Times is full of facts."

 

I went a nice panel discussion with Noam a couple years ago when that documentary came out. Fascinating dude. Said this exact same thing....and specifically said to go to the back pages of the front section for the real news. I think hes probably a bit over the top with the extent to which he thinks the NYT is "hiding" things in a highly deliberate fashion, but hes not wrong in challenging the inherent Allegory of the Cave nature of American political life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

1) Kavanaugh was nominated....

2) Kavanaugh was nominated before the video you posted.....

3) You realize the same "fill in the gaps" principles you're espousing in the Kavanaugh-Ford context would make Trump look like Vlad Lenin if applied consistently, right?

I cant tell if you're in the tank or being intellectually dishonest. I guess I have to conclude the former is more likely than the latter. 

Like. +100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now