Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 67968 times)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1430
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #650 on: July 18, 2017, 04:57:52 PM »
Thoughts on this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/europe/trump-putin-undisclosed-meeting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I suspect that this is where the real discussion, for better or for worse, occurred. Given that it was Trump, I expect mostly for worse. I wonder if Putin sees Trump as a foreign leader or an asset (in the tradecraft sense of the word)?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #651 on: July 18, 2017, 05:03:52 PM »
Thoughts on this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/europe/trump-putin-undisclosed-meeting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I suspect that this is where the real discussion, for better or for worse, occurred. Given that it was Trump, I expect mostly for worse. I wonder if Putin sees Trump as a foreign leader or an asset (in the tradecraft sense of the word)?

No way to tell what it means.  On one hand, it's not particularly unusual for two world leaders to have a private, undisclosed meeting.  OTOH, the optics of this couldn't be get much worse.  Was there ever a point when DJT stopped and thought "gee, maybe a secret meeting with Putin right now might not be a great idea in case it gets out."

Think Russia leaked it to the NYT?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #652 on: July 19, 2017, 12:27:39 PM »
stopped and thought

These 3 words need never be applied to Trump.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #653 on: July 19, 2017, 06:11:59 PM »
Oh my goodness, Trump just threw Sessions under the bus. What a freak show.

Trump Tells The Times He Wouldn’t Have Appointed Sessions if He Had Known Sessions Would Recuse Himself on Russia
https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #654 on: July 20, 2017, 06:14:03 AM »
Oh my goodness, Trump just threw Sessions under the bus. What a freak show.

Trump Tells The Times He Wouldn’t Have Appointed Sessions if He Had Known Sessions Would Recuse Himself on Russia
https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv

Trump demands 'loyalty', but he won't hesitate to throw his most loyal followers under the bus.  Geez.  Sessions was one of the very first to (very publicly) jump on the Trump train.  Then he gave up a very safe senate seat where he could have been perpetually re-elected, then lied/forgot in his confirmation hearing about his meetings with the Russians during the campaign, damaging his reputation and exposing himself to accusations of perjury.  That is the very reason why he agreed to recuse himself from all Russian matters.  His reward - a verbal flogging from his boss.

With friends like these...

Also interesting to note that Trump got in some shots against Rosenstein and questioned Mueller's independence.  He even went so far as to say any investigation into his finances by Mueller would be crossing a "red line".  What about those tax returns you promised, buddy??


"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

DarkandStormy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #655 on: July 20, 2017, 07:20:04 AM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342700-poll-nearly-half-of-trump-voters-dont-think-trump-jr-met-with-russian

You cannot reason with Trump voters.  They are delusional.

Quote
77 percent of the Trump voters said they think Trump should stay in office even if the campaign did collude with Russia.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #656 on: July 20, 2017, 07:25:07 AM »
Oh my goodness, Trump just threw Sessions under the bus. What a freak show.

Trump Tells The Times He Wouldn’t Have Appointed Sessions if He Had Known Sessions Would Recuse Himself on Russia
https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv

Quote
“Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the president,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to the president.”

Is it... normal for the president to talk about himself/his office in the third person like that? It seems weird, but for all I know they've all done it.
My Cleverly Titled Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/cleverly-titled-journal/
My Cat's Facebook Page (yes, really): www.facebook.com/chicagotau
Tau now has an Instagram: www.instagram.com/chicagotau or #chicagotau
Ting referral ($25 credit!): https://zds8505smfe.ting.com/
Discover Card referral ($50 now and $50 after your first year! and free credit monitoring): https://refer.discover.com/s/gv3ma

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #657 on: July 20, 2017, 07:41:54 AM »
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.

Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.

Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination

Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got.  Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.

... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #658 on: July 20, 2017, 08:12:11 AM »

If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything.  I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to  mid-terms.  That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018

I have a high degree of confidence that Trump will last through the midterms.  Here's why
Forcing him our will involve drafting articles of impeachment, BUT those articles must come from the House (currently controlled by the GOP) and by precedence would be drafted by the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Gowdy - R/SC).
Nothing to date has shown that the House is willing to tolerate articles of impeachment so far - suggesting we'd need something substantially more damning to go down this route so long as the GOP holds the majority.  What that could be I'd only hazard a guess.

Even if articles were drafted, it would be followed by months of high-drama testomonies and a trial, none of which the GOP wants.  They'll avoid this at all costs, up and until it become apparent that NOT doing so will cost them their seats.  Unfortunately, too many are in such ridiculously safe districts that there's no reason for them to set fire to their own boat while they're still in it.

Trump could quit and resign, but this seems unlike too - while he's been infurated by circumstances thus far he seems to adore the title and is convinced not only that he's done nothing wrong, but that everything would be "great" if people would just do what he says.

The wildcard is still Mueller, and DJT's team seems busy laying the groundwork to discredit him already.  FBI investigations though typically take upwards of a few years, and we're on month 2.  Plus, the huge scope of this investigation on so many fronts suggests it will take longer than other investigations. Even if Mueller has found criminal wrongdoing the indictments won't come out until the end when he's confident he's learned all he can from the investigative portion. I don't expect to hear anything from Mueller until 2018 at the earliest.

Interestingly, I think the most probable scenario is a strong GOP challenger to the incumbent DJT during the 2020 primary. This is something we haven't seen in over a generation - Buchanan held a lackluster challenge to H.W. in 92, but the last time a GOP seriously challenged the incumbent president was Reagan in 1980.  I think this scenario will become much more likely should the GOP lose the house in 2018 and with it whatever ability they could have had to draft legislation in committee and get sent to the WH.
If this happens get ready for a stream of attack ads from within the GOP about how Trump has been a false republican, and all the counter-punching we saw during the 2016 GOP primary taken up a new level.  DJT demands loyalty above all else, so any factions that challenge him will become 'the enemy' with no holds barred. Maybe the GOP will split, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a bad thing (indeed, I think it would be great if both the Dems and Reps split into 2 or more parties).

While I would agree that the above makes perfect sense, it does not take into account Trump's inability to keep his mouth shut and not incriminate himself through whining and/or bragging.  NY Times interview published today is a perfect example.   His personality makes me think there is a strong likelihood in him eventually pulling a Nathan Jessep and just admitting what happened. 

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Age: 35
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #659 on: July 20, 2017, 08:29:29 AM »
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2489
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #660 on: July 20, 2017, 08:46:00 AM »
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.

FTFY.

And: no.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #661 on: July 20, 2017, 08:58:42 AM »
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.

Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.

Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination

Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got.  Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.

... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
Thanks for the examples nereo. I think he was trying to refer to the office, but just failed horribly and came off sounding crazy.

As for the others, I think they were using it as a rhetorical device--with varying levels of success.

However, I'm now eagerly awaiting the day when Trump starts using the royal We.  “Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly We think is very unfair Us,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, We would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but We're not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to Us.”
My Cleverly Titled Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/cleverly-titled-journal/
My Cat's Facebook Page (yes, really): www.facebook.com/chicagotau
Tau now has an Instagram: www.instagram.com/chicagotau or #chicagotau
Ting referral ($25 credit!): https://zds8505smfe.ting.com/
Discover Card referral ($50 now and $50 after your first year! and free credit monitoring): https://refer.discover.com/s/gv3ma

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #662 on: July 20, 2017, 09:02:55 AM »
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.

An interesting question.  I think which representatives support Trump will depend greatly on their re-election potential.
Regarding impeachment, the person who's backing matters the most is Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Oversight committee and a member of the tea party.
He is from one of the safest republican districts, having won re-election with 67% of the vote in 2016. In order for him to allow either censureship or articles of impeachment to proceed he'll need to calculate that a) Trump will definitely lose and b) the alternative (in this case Pence) will be favorable to his goals and re-election over the status quo (DJT).  This is a hard sell - while his district is 'safe,' it holds a lot of Trump voters (DJT won there by 25%)  Short of some immense pressure from other ranking members (and don't leave our Elijah Cummings) Gowdy can basically stonewall most attempts to hold DJT accountable.

Most of the other GOP members are similarly protected - it will take a LOT for them to turn on their standard bearer and POTUS.  Now, if the GOP loses the house in 2018 they'll lose the committee chairs along with it, and I predict articles and limitations to rain down on the WH for months. Here, the risk is that the Dems will go too far, releasing pent-up frustration and turning legitimate concerns into a endless series of petty complaints... and they might lose that argument. It would be similar to how the investigation of WJC wound up focusing on an affair with intern - something the public largely decided was morally reprehensible but not a matter of national security.

This is the cynic in my talking - my personal wish is that, when regarding the presidency each member acted with what they believed to be the best for the country.  But in reality I think each considers what is best for themselves and their constituents, even when the issue is with the executive branch.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #663 on: July 20, 2017, 09:09:09 AM »
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.

Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.

Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination

Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got.  Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.

... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
Thanks for the examples nereo. I think he was trying to refer to the office, but just failed horribly and came off sounding crazy.

As for the others, I think they were using it as a rhetorical device--with varying levels of success.

However, I'm now eagerly awaiting the day when Trump starts using the royal We.  “Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly We think is very unfair Us,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, We would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but We're not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to Us.”

Maybe DJT thinks that's what people mean when they write "US".  POTUS... US meeting European leaders... Strong words from US against N. Korea... US pulls out of Paris agreement...
DJT: I must be an US now!
(joking of course...)
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #664 on: July 20, 2017, 09:14:52 AM »
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.

Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.

Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination

Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got.  Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.

... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
Thanks for the examples nereo. I think he was trying to refer to the office, but just failed horribly and came off sounding crazy.

As for the others, I think they were using it as a rhetorical device--with varying levels of success.

However, I'm now eagerly awaiting the day when Trump starts using the royal We.  “Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly We think is very unfair Us,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, We would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but We're not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to Us.”

Maybe DJT thinks that's what people mean when they write "US".  POTUS... US meeting European leaders... Strong words from US against N. Korea... US pulls out of Paris agreement...
DJT: I must be an US now!
(joking of course...)
Headcannon accepted.
My Cleverly Titled Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/cleverly-titled-journal/
My Cat's Facebook Page (yes, really): www.facebook.com/chicagotau
Tau now has an Instagram: www.instagram.com/chicagotau or #chicagotau
Ting referral ($25 credit!): https://zds8505smfe.ting.com/
Discover Card referral ($50 now and $50 after your first year! and free credit monitoring): https://refer.discover.com/s/gv3ma

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #665 on: July 20, 2017, 09:24:08 AM »
NYT's interview aside, I'm less concerned with DJT's latest mud-flinging at Sessions as I am with his actual deeds regarding Russia.

Following an hour long secrete meeting with Putin in which DJT did not even have his own interpreter present, Trump has decided to cut off support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels, effectively siding with Russia.  Remember that just 3 months ago DJT ordered an air strike against Assad for retaliation on Assad's use of chemical weapons, and Trump UN appointee Nikki Haley declared "in no way do we see peace in that area with Assad at the head of the Syrian government"

A secret meeting with Putin and suddenly DJT has changed his mind on who to support in Syria?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Age: 35
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #666 on: July 20, 2017, 09:28:51 AM »
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.

An interesting question.  I think which representatives support Trump will depend greatly on their re-election potential.
Regarding impeachment, the person who's backing matters the most is Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Oversight committee and a member of the tea party.
He is from one of the safest republican districts, having won re-election with 67% of the vote in 2016. In order for him to allow either censureship or articles of impeachment to proceed he'll need to calculate that a) Trump will definitely lose and b) the alternative (in this case Pence) will be favorable to his goals and re-election over the status quo (DJT).  This is a hard sell - while his district is 'safe,' it holds a lot of Trump voters (DJT won there by 25%)  Short of some immense pressure from other ranking members (and don't leave our Elijah Cummings) Gowdy can basically stonewall most attempts to hold DJT accountable.

Most of the other GOP members are similarly protected - it will take a LOT for them to turn on their standard bearer and POTUS.  Now, if the GOP loses the house in 2018 they'll lose the committee chairs along with it, and I predict articles and limitations to rain down on the WH for months. Here, the risk is that the Dems will go too far, releasing pent-up frustration and turning legitimate concerns into a endless series of petty complaints... and they might lose that argument. It would be similar to how the investigation of WJC wound up focusing on an affair with intern - something the public largely decided was morally reprehensible but not a matter of national security.

This is the cynic in my talking - my personal wish is that, when regarding the presidency each member acted with what they believed to be the best for the country.  But in reality I think each considers what is best for themselves and their constituents, even when the issue is with the executive branch.

I agree impeachment with a Republican House is very unlikely, but that isn't the only recourse. Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #667 on: July 20, 2017, 09:42:50 AM »
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.

An interesting question.  I think which representatives support Trump will depend greatly on their re-election potential.
Regarding impeachment, the person who's backing matters the most is Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Oversight committee and a member of the tea party.
He is from one of the safest republican districts, having won re-election with 67% of the vote in 2016. In order for him to allow either censureship or articles of impeachment to proceed he'll need to calculate that a) Trump will definitely lose and b) the alternative (in this case Pence) will be favorable to his goals and re-election over the status quo (DJT).  This is a hard sell - while his district is 'safe,' it holds a lot of Trump voters (DJT won there by 25%)  Short of some immense pressure from other ranking members (and don't leave our Elijah Cummings) Gowdy can basically stonewall most attempts to hold DJT accountable.

Most of the other GOP members are similarly protected - it will take a LOT for them to turn on their standard bearer and POTUS.  Now, if the GOP loses the house in 2018 they'll lose the committee chairs along with it, and I predict articles and limitations to rain down on the WH for months. Here, the risk is that the Dems will go too far, releasing pent-up frustration and turning legitimate concerns into a endless series of petty complaints... and they might lose that argument. It would be similar to how the investigation of WJC wound up focusing on an affair with intern - something the public largely decided was morally reprehensible but not a matter of national security.

This is the cynic in my talking - my personal wish is that, when regarding the presidency each member acted with what they believed to be the best for the country.  But in reality I think each considers what is best for themselves and their constituents, even when the issue is with the executive branch.

I agree impeachment with a Republican House is very unlikely, but that isn't the only recourse. Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Yeah.... that seems like an even bigger hill to climb than just drafting articles of impeachment.

For all these reasons I stick by my earlier prognosis that DJT is going to stick around through 2018. Maybe when the congressional compaign season is in full swing and polls start showing who is and isn't likely to be elected things might start to shift.  Dems don't have the numbers and too few GOPers will risk party war for Pence over DJT. Pence himself has been shown to be the biggest 'yes' man despite being left out to dry multiple times defending Trump only to have Trump contradict him.  It would be fascinating to see Pence turn on Trump though (but no evidence shows he'll ever do this). Shame, Pence is one of the few individuals whom DJT cannot remove or even effectively threaten.

For now we've got the status quo, and this endless weekly barrage of 'breaking news' and blockbuster statements and new revelations of misdeeds and outrageous statements.  ::sigh::
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #668 on: July 20, 2017, 02:59:25 PM »
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #669 on: July 20, 2017, 03:22:25 PM »
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #670 on: July 20, 2017, 03:58:23 PM »
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

If will be absolutely ridiculous if he actually does this. I am not convinced enough people will turn against him, but if that didn't do it nothing but a democratic majority will.

That level of obstruction of justice is probably even worse than any collusion he could have been a party too... I am also utterly convinced he will do it too. No way he stops at firing Comey if the investigation intensifies. Letting things go is not in his DNA.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Age: 35
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #671 on: July 20, 2017, 04:00:47 PM »
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.

August recess coming up. Maybe he will fire Sessions and Rosenstein and whomever else before the August recess, and then make a recess appointment of Kushner or maybe Trump Jr. as the AG.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #672 on: July 20, 2017, 04:40:08 PM »
hmm... i never even pondered recess appointments.  That would be truly diabolical. 
(i feel like this is the plot to some half-baked political thriller)
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Age: 35
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #673 on: July 20, 2017, 06:14:24 PM »
hmm... i never even pondered recess appointments.  That would be truly diabolical. 
(i feel like this is the plot to some half-baked political thriller)

If what's happening now was a plot in any political thriller that was pitched to any movie studio before Trump got elected they wouldn't have taken it up because it would be too unbelievable, yet here we are.

I wonder if the Senate will continue being in session, like they did with Obama, but not conducting business, just so Trump can't do recess appointments.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #674 on: July 20, 2017, 06:35:12 PM »
That would be wierd... it would be the president's own party which would have to stay "in session" to keep the president from not using any recess appointments.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #676 on: July 21, 2017, 06:31:35 AM »
Well, it seems he is now investigating the scope of his pardoning power, as well as ways to build a conflict of interest case against Mueller:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_campaign=pubexchange_article&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_term=.7343855937f7

Ah.... it seems like only yesterday (actually it was a full TWO MONTHS ago) when a slew of republicans sung Mueller's praises and declared he would be fair and thorough.
Begin the drum beat of GOPers tearing at his credibility...

(just a quick search of earlier GOP comments on Mueller - we'll see how many change their tune in the weeks ahead)
McCain - a great choice for special counsel
Roskam - a man of the utmost integrity
Issa - somebody we all trust
FLores - I’m fine with [Mueller's appointment]
Meadows - Mueller's appointment is] a prudent move, and it certainly means that the administration is taking it seriously
Lankford - Mueller's appointment will make it work faster
Chaffetz - Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials.
Comstock - [Appointing Mueller is the] right thing to do and the right choice
Spicer - [President Trump] wants the truth and these investigations to get to the bottom of the situation
Murkowski - [this special procescutor will] restore the public’s trust
Ryan - My priority has been to ensure thorough and independent investigations are allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead.... The addition of Robert Mueller as special counsel is consistent with this goal
Rubio - For the sake of the country, all parties must fully cooperate with [Mueller's] efforts
Cornyn - [Mueller] is a well-respected law enforcement professional
Lance - I support the independence of the special counsel,
Burr - This assures everybody that one of the most reputable individuals is overseeing the review
Graham - There's no reason to fire Mueller. What's he done to be fired?
Collins -  Excellent choice for special counsel by Deputy AG. Fmr FBI Director Bob Mueller has sterling credentials & is above reproach
FLake - I think there's a lot of confidence in Mueller around here... we've all dealt with him
P. King - I think Bob Mueller’s as good as you’re going to find
Gingrich - [Muller would be a ] superb choice [for special prosecutor].
Duncan - Mueller is great choice! We must follow the FACTS wherever they lead & put this to rest one way or other
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Age: 35
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #677 on: July 21, 2017, 09:29:39 AM »
Mass pardon of all of Trump's associates/family incoming.

You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).

I really hope he does this: Takes out a pen, and says "I pardon all of my supporters, all Republicans, everyone in my family and campaign staff for any crime or crimes they may have committed."

That would be great. Then, by default, the justice department could only investigate democrats and anti-trump folks since the rest have no convict-able crimes to pursue.

Make America Great Again! (by letting all criminals go free... oh, we're the tough on crime party? nah, only when it's not us doing the crime)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #678 on: July 21, 2017, 09:44:32 AM »
You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).


I've been wondering this - suppose a pardon was granted; would that actually stop all five investigations (Mueller's plus the four congressional inquiries)? Granted many in the WH would certainly make the argument that with no potential crime there should be no investigation.  But could the investigations continue on the basis of uncovering the truth, regardless of whether someone goes to jail?  Could it continue under the premise that potentially non-pardoned individuals might be involved (for example: democrats, lobbyists not ever part of the Trump campaign?)
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #679 on: July 21, 2017, 09:50:20 AM »
You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).


I've been wondering this - suppose a pardon was granted; would that actually stop all five investigations (Mueller's plus the four congressional inquiries)? Granted many in the WH would certainly make the argument that with no potential crime there should be no investigation.  But could the investigations continue on the basis of uncovering the truth, regardless of whether someone goes to jail?  Could it continue under the premise that potentially non-pardoned individuals might be involved (for example: democrats, lobbyists not ever part of the Trump campaign?)

I feel like this makes sense, unless Trump outs all of the people still in the shadows by preemptively pardoning them as well, I guess.

I find this entire scenario highly implausible, but for the sake of the thought experiment, the fallout would be a good litmus test of the boundaries of partisanship in this country right now. I'm not sure I can think of anything more inherently corrupt than a president pardoning himself, so it would be interesting to see how many people still try to argue that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

DarkandStormy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #680 on: July 21, 2017, 10:40:52 AM »
Bye bye, Spicey!
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #681 on: July 21, 2017, 10:56:31 AM »
Bye bye, Spicey!
I wonder what Melissa McCarthy will do now...
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Age: 35
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #682 on: July 21, 2017, 11:09:41 AM »
You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).


I've been wondering this - suppose a pardon was granted; would that actually stop all five investigations (Mueller's plus the four congressional inquiries)? Granted many in the WH would certainly make the argument that with no potential crime there should be no investigation.  But could the investigations continue on the basis of uncovering the truth, regardless of whether someone goes to jail?  Could it continue under the premise that potentially non-pardoned individuals might be involved (for example: democrats, lobbyists not ever part of the Trump campaign?)

I feel like this makes sense, unless Trump outs all of the people still in the shadows by preemptively pardoning them as well, I guess.

I find this entire scenario highly implausible, but for the sake of the thought experiment, the fallout would be a good litmus test of the boundaries of partisanship in this country right now. I'm not sure I can think of anything more inherently corrupt than a president pardoning himself, so it would be interesting to see how many people still try to argue that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

I tend to agree that it's implausible. But we are in a sequence of implausible events.... who knows what the probability of anything is at this point really.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #683 on: July 21, 2017, 11:24:31 AM »
For anyone who might be thinking (or wishing) that we're near the end of all of this:

Notes: 
Mueller was appointed on May 17th 2017; 65 days ago
Watergate was stopped at 150 days when Nixon abolished the office of the special prosecutor (Saturday Night Massacre)
Whitewater investigation started in 1994 investigating real estate and culminated in the 1999 impeachment trial over an affair and perjury charges but continued until 2002
Excluding the preemptively terminated Watergate, all investigations have exceed 1 year; most have continued well into year #3.



Full Article Here.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #684 on: July 21, 2017, 03:15:32 PM »
Mass pardon of all of Trump's associates/family incoming.


If anyone is stupid enough to do it, it would be Trump... No one has even been accused of a crime yet...

But wait I guess its all just part of his master negotiating skills. But wait didn't he write that book explaining how all his skills are put to use?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

I still find it laughable that people take "The Art of the Deal" as evidence that Trumps master negotiating skills are a careful strategy. But I guess it is easy enough to dismiss one persons insight if you think he is out to get your president.

I'll grant you his methods were effective in this election cycle and likely will be for the next one, but I see it as more evidence of his practiced ability to prey on the desperation of real people to gain power and money. Many unscrupulous people have this ability and those willing to use it tend to be rich. I have zero respect for all of them because they are societal leeches.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #685 on: July 22, 2017, 06:58:30 AM »
Russia's ambassador has said he and Sessions discussed the 2016 campaign during two meetings last year

If true, that makes approximately 2,374 people in the Trump administration that spoke to Kislyak last year (would hate to see his phone bill). How stupid are these people? For a while, I have believed that no actual crimes have been committed by Team Trump because everyone is too incompetent to actually succeed in committing one.

In other news, Kushner found $10.6M that he lost under his sofa cushion and had forgotten about. Rumor has it he is now sweeping his tool shed for Kandinskys. At least McCain eventually figured out how many houses he owned.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #686 on: July 22, 2017, 01:05:35 PM »
Trump officially declared he has complete power to pardon as he went off on the usual; Obamacare, Clinton, news outlets and even tossed in his own administration.

He has all but officially announced his guilt.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #687 on: July 22, 2017, 06:26:41 PM »

He has all but officially announced his guilt.

Let's be careful here.  This could absolutely be DJT trying to hide some serious crime, but what precisely what and how many are still unknown (besides what has already been revealed). 
There's also the possibility that his interest in pardons are about protecting someone else (his sons, perhaps) or that he believes no one has a right to know anything about his personal finances ("it's none of your damn business!!") because that would be very bad for his businesses (loans, debt, losing money)
Of course not wanting any of this to become public makes his decision to become a public servant was a really dumb thing to do.

I'm just saying - innocent until proven guilty and all.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9132
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #688 on: July 23, 2017, 02:22:14 PM »

He has all but officially announced his guilt.

Let's be careful here.  This could absolutely be DJT trying to hide some serious crime, but what precisely what and how many are still unknown (besides what has already been revealed). 
There's also the possibility that his interest in pardons are about protecting someone else (his sons, perhaps) or that he believes no one has a right to know anything about his personal finances ("it's none of your damn business!!") because that would be very bad for his businesses (loans, debt, losing money)
Of course not wanting any of this to become public makes his decision to become a public servant was a really dumb thing to do.

I'm just saying - innocent until proven guilty and all.

Innocent until proven guilty is a great, fundamentally important legal concept.  It has no bearing (and should have no bearing) on public opinion.  If you're technically not in violation of the law, but have behaved in a manner reprehensible to the average person you should not do jail time.  You should expect to be reviled though.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #689 on: July 23, 2017, 02:36:26 PM »

Innocent until proven guilty is a great, fundamentally important legal concept.  It has no bearing (and should have no bearing) on public opinion.  If you're technically not in violation of the law, but have behaved in a manner reprehensible to the average person you should not do jail time.  You should expect to be reviled though.

Perhaps.  But angry mobs get out of control because they view opponents as guilty and condemn people without reflection. Just look at how many people believe HRC is "the most crooked politician in history" and cite deleted emails as 'proof'. If the "never Trump" camp (of which I am a member) wants to avoid a similar hypocracy, we cannot also equate a lack of cooperation with guilt. 

DJT has certainly said and done plenty so far to be critical of, nad there's plenty of investigative material coming in the monhts ahead.  Why make judgements on him based on speculation and conjecture?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6981
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #690 on: July 23, 2017, 02:39:24 PM »
Perhaps.  But angry mobs get out of control because they view opponents as guilty and condemn people without reflection. Just look at how many people believe HRC is "the most crooked politician in history" and cite deleted emails as 'proof'. If the "never Trump" camp (of which I am a member) wants to avoid a similar hypocracy, we cannot also equate a lack of cooperation with guilt. 

DJT has certainly said and done plenty so far to be critical of, nad there's plenty of investigative material coming in the monhts ahead.  Why make judgements on him based on speculation and conjecture?
Well said.

Revulsion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #691 on: July 23, 2017, 08:07:31 PM »
I apologise if this has been answered else where.

I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts where some unscrupulous actor could get them? A knife in the back happened to our republic long before anyone hacked the DNC. Oddly enough it was from the DNC itself! Why are Democrats not calling for a complete reform of their party? The core is rotten and corrupt, yet I only hear "Russian Meddling."

Clinton got caught with her hand in the cookie jar and blamed the foreign guy for her actions. And that's what bugs me. That if those emails had never come out, everyone would be content with the illusion that our election had been by the people.

And everyone will say "Russia shouldn't have meddled in our election." I figure Democrats shouldn't have run a terrible candidate, who ran a disastrous campaign, that didn't appeal to a disillusioned base and then maybe the hack would not have been so effective.

I assume I poked a beehive but I honestly believe that Democrats tried to float the Titanic and proceeded to ram every damn iceberg in a 10 mile radius.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #692 on: July 23, 2017, 10:03:45 PM »
The escalating series of actions that Trump is doing such as firing Comey, and now trying to discredit and potentially fire Mueller suggest he has something to hide.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6981
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #693 on: July 23, 2017, 10:28:52 PM »
The escalating series of actions that Trump is doing...suggest he has something to hide.
Could be.

Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5422
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #694 on: July 24, 2017, 12:58:22 AM »
Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.

That's being pretty charitable. 

Imagine if Obama had refused to release his birth certificate and then started speaking Swahili in the White House and sending his paycheck to Kenya, and you have some idea of how Trump is responding to the "innuendo".  Despite the fact that those birther criticisms were totally baseless, OF COURSE he responded in a transparent manner by releasing all documents and providing corroborating witnesses and freely discussing the topic with the press.  He did not fire anybody.  He did not threaten anybody.  He did not deliberately encourage the rumors by doing things that made it look like they were all true, and then give speeches claiming that it's probably not true, but even if it was true it would be totally fine and he would just pardon himself.

Trump is trolling the nation again, just like he did with "there's nobody better on women than me" after the pussy grabbing tape, and "I'm the only one who respects the military" after trashing Gold Star families at the convention.  Just like he did with Rosie O'Donnel and the birther conspiracy and "I'll release my taxes the day I win the nomination" and Mexican rapists who "some of them, I assume, are good people."  He's a deliberately inflammatory caricature of himself.  He thrives by pissing other people off, even when he debases and degrades and contradicts himself to do it, so of course he'll deny all contact with the Russians and then the very next day invite the Russian literally into the Oval Office for a secret meeting.  It's like he's constantly trying to see exactly how far he can push things before everyone realizes he's just joking about this whole "being President" thing.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #695 on: July 24, 2017, 06:02:18 AM »
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #696 on: July 24, 2017, 06:22:00 AM »
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...

Clinton could have run an honest campaign. The DNC could have done its job and been unbiased. Yet both failed to do their jobs. They had chosen Clinton long before Sanders appeared on the scene. Yet Democrats are saying "Russia harmed our electoral system." It was already damaged by the DNC actions. All the hacking did was reveal it.

And for a supposedly experienced group of politicians, why did they leave evidence of their manipulations online? Basic criminals know not to leave fingerprints. 30 year political veterans should know not to leave a paper trail. So out of idiocy or incompetence they screwed up.

Clinton ran the largest, most powerful political machine the world had ever seen. (The Titanic.) But the Clinton name is cursed. The icebergs are the problems she had on the campaign trail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html)
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #697 on: July 24, 2017, 07:22:50 AM »
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...

Clinton could have run an honest campaign.

Is that why you think Clinton lost because she wasn't honest enough?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6515
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #698 on: July 24, 2017, 08:04:09 AM »
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...

Clinton could have run an honest campaign. The DNC could have done its job and been unbiased. Yet both failed to do their jobs. They had chosen Clinton long before Sanders appeared on the scene. Yet Democrats are saying "Russia harmed our electoral system." It was already damaged by the DNC actions. All the hacking did was reveal it.

And for a supposedly experienced group of politicians, why did they leave evidence of their manipulations online? Basic criminals know not to leave fingerprints. 30 year political veterans should know not to leave a paper trail. So out of idiocy or incompetence they screwed up.

Clinton ran the largest, most powerful political machine the world had ever seen. (The Titanic.) But the Clinton name is cursed. The icebergs are the problems she had on the campaign trail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html)

Thank you for responding.  I will say I disagree with many of your interpretations and assumptions.  For starters I've never believed that either the DNC or the RNC are 'neutral, unbiased' entities.  They are private political parties and have always sought out and supported candidates who exemplified their message.  To me it was common sense that they would support HRC - a high profile democrat for over three decades - over Sanders, who has never been a democrat. Or, to use your parlance, the DNC's "job" is to support candidates who fit the party line and have the best chance of pushing their agenda.  It can be argued that the DNC made a grave miscalculation here, but we'll never know how it could have turned out.  I'd also say that the RNC tried and failed to support candidates who supported the GOP platform.  As a result, under DJT the GOP's platform is splintered and largely non-compatible with what it was under the Bushes and Reagan.

Were they idiots for leaving an electronic trail?  possibly, but that doesn't denote that their strategies were either unexpected or illegal. To my knowledge all the emails really showed was a concerted effort to defeat and discredit other political challengers.  What did we expect they were saying behind closed doors - "gee, Bernie is great and i secretly hope he wins but how can we run for president and not ever make him look bad"?  common...The major mistake the HRC campaign made was to use a private server, then lie about how it was used and botch several opportunities to come clean about it.  I chalk that up to arrogance (another thing politics has plenty of). It also makes no sense to me why people are so willing to condemn HRC for saying unflattering things about her opponents in private email conversations when DJT said similar things in the national press.  What's the message?  You be nasty in public but not in private?

Finally there's this assertion that Russian interference is somehow not something to be concerned about because of the way HRC ran her campaign. Let's dispatch with that notion - regardless of what you believe HRC is or is not guilty of, it does not justify or negate a foreign entity attempting to influence our democratic elections. The "HRC is a corrupt politician so anything Russia may ahve done doesn't matter" doesn't add up. We cannot ignore severe crimes simply because we don't like who they were perpetrated against.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

DarkandStormy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #699 on: July 24, 2017, 08:42:25 AM »
Clinton could have run an honest campaign.

How many people in the Trump Administration have resigned/been fired over lying?  How many SF-86 updates does one administration need?
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX