|
Post by mikey on Nov 3, 2017 11:37:01 GMT -5
Sorry for the delayed response. I've been busy. No problem Okay. It seems that you're making a distinction between "non - partisan" and "non -partisanship", it seems a little hair splittey but I get it. The absurd part of this, is the ignoring the anti Trump and establishment portion of the republicans all in the same party Just because Mueller is a card carrying republican, doesn't mean he is not, or can not be biased. Glass houses and all that. For the record, I don't believe Hillary will ever be indicted for anything. I'm not in that camp. You people on the destroy Trump at any cost side might need to get off the whole "you're ether with us or against us" clap trap. I don't appreciate getting pigeon holed because I don't support certain behaviors in this war. You people should consider that no Russian citizen cast a vote for president of the USA. Our brothers and sisters all across the nation voted for Trump and got him elected.What needs to be considered is how the nations citizens became so desperate that they felt Trump was their best choice Out of curiosity, which one was working for the Trump side? "Time and Mueller will tell" Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. [/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2017 12:20:41 GMT -5
John Podesta was working for Hillary -- he was her campaign chairman. Tony Podesta wasn't working for the Trump side (I totally misstated that -- sorry, I'm still scrambling around today and posting between calls) I meant to say he was connected to the Trump investigation. He did work for Manafort, not Trump. His group worked for a Ukrainian not-for-profit group that was linked to Manafort. When this came out in the Manafort indictment, Tony stepped down from his position heading his lobbying group. My intended point (admittedly extremely muddled, my apologies) is that many are conflating the two Podestas and treating them as though they both worked directly for the Clinton campaign. Any hey, maybe they did. Maybe they are both corrupt as hell -- wouldn't surprise me. Maybe we will find that both of them were colluding with Russia to throw the election in favor of Hillary. It's just that they aren't the same person, and so far, as far as I know, only one has been mentioned in the Russia investigation, unless I missed something. (Which is actually possible. I've been doing my best to keep up, but have been busy.) ETA: It sound like we might both agree with this statement: "If Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia, Mueller will expose it, assuming he is as impartial and competent as he has always been reputed to be." My objection to the statement in your original post was that it seemed to assume that Hillary was guilty, and if Mueller didn't find so, he must be corrupt. Which I don't agree with because it is completely possible she's innocent (of colluding with Russia, anyway). On the flip side, for the record, Mueller is one of the few people who could tell me, at the end of the investigation, that there was no evidence Trump himself was involved in collusion, and I'd actually believe that he both looked thoroughly and that he didn't find anything. ETA: I should probably wait until the weekend to respond to a couple other posts I want to respond to. I'm not at my best posting between conference calls. My focus is elsewhere, and y'all deserve better from me. ETA: Although John Podesta founded the Podesta group, he hasn't been involved with them for years. See,e.g., www.politico.com/story/2016/08/podesta-group-paul-manafort-russia-ukraine-227215That's been Tony's baby for a while.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2017 12:56:23 GMT -5
On this point, you're quite right -- I know a lot of people feel this way. And many of them felt this way for reasons I understand. I get exactly why Rob went third party this time around, for example, though I didn't do the same. I know he reads real news, and though I don't always agree with him, I also know he stops to think about it and weigh it. (That's the last time I'm being nice to you in 2017, Rob. ) But there is a subset of people (and given the closeness of the election, and that Hillary actually won the popular vote, this subset matters) who swallowed a lot of blatantly false information that caused them to believe untrue stuff about Clinton. (My favorite was a woman I argued with on another site where I sometimes post -- she said she'd never vote for Hillary because she was a falling down drunk who was dying of cirrhosis of the liver, which is why she passed out that one time. She asserted that Hillary was well known for her drunken rages. I mean, uh, what?!) And depending on their news sources, they may never have heard of many of Trump's peccadillos. (There are people who think the infamous pussy tape was invented, for example. And who scoff at the idea that Trump ever filed for bankruptcy.) Those people made their choice, all right, but they did so based on faulty information that caused them to believe worse of Hillary than she actually deserved, and better of Trump than he deserved. We didn't need many of them for that to change the election results. The Russian propaganda campaign reached millions of voters. And this election pretty much came down to less than 100,000 voters in three swing states.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 3, 2017 13:47:42 GMT -5
In regards to the “popular vote”, it don't matter. The populations of one or two states ought not to be able to lord over the remaining majority of states. That's probably why our election system was set up the way it is.
What difference does it make about the criteria people use to make their voting decision? Is there a law or rule somewhere that people can only use a sanctioned system for making a decision on who to vote for? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all, lip stick and all.
Russian, Republican, Democrat, Corporations, all flood the senses' with propaganda. I personally don't see the difference between them. They all reach millions of people with similar goals in mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2017 14:03:15 GMT -5
In regards to the “popular vote”, it don't matter. The populations of one or two states ought not to be able to lord over the remaining majority of states. That's probably why our election system was set up the way it is. What difference does it make about the criteria people use to make their voting decision? Is there a law or rule somewhere that people can only use a sanctioned system for making a decision on who to vote for? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all, lip stick and all. Russian, Republican, Democrat, Corporations, all flood the senses' with propaganda. I personally don't see the difference between them. They all reach millions of people with similar goals in mind. We just don't know how it affected voters, and whether it did so enough to sway the election. I don't see how we can ever know that, which is why it's silly (IMO) to argue that the election results aren't legitimate based on the fact that there was Russian interference. Trump won the electoral college, though he lost the popular vote. I don't think we can or should undo the election results simply because Russia put an oar in. My argument is not that we undo the election results. What we DO know is that Russia tried to interfere with our election in favor of Trump. I don't see how anyone rational can deny that. And they did their best to stir up differences between Americans and set us at each other's throats more than we were already. We should all care, whether we like our current president or loathe him, that a hostile power did that. We should strive to ensure it doesn't happen again. Tabloids issuing propaganda is one thing. Hostile foreign powers doing it, especially covertly, especially in cooperation with a campaign? Quite another. If Mueller's investigation turns up that some in either campaign actively helped or encouraged Russia to do that, we should all care about that, too. (Especially if it turns out that our president himself did so.) Hence the investigation. If it turns out that Trump DID collude with Russia to sway the election, while it's not grounds to have a do-over on the election, I'd say it is sufficient grounds for impeachment. It doesn't matter whether it did, in fact, make a difference in the election. The attempt is what matters, not the success of the attempt. Of course, as some of you will hasten to point out, that doesn't mean that this Congress will impeach. Indeed, I rather suspect that Trump could shoot down kindergarteners for sport and this particular Congress wouldn't impeach. But (1) that could change in 2018, and (2) the verdict of history could be pretty brutal if Congress were to ignore actual criminal actions to get in tax reform and more conservative judges. ETA: Finally, I must add: Digging up information on your opponent is not the same as colluding with a foreign power. Both campaigns actively sought to dig up dirt on the other. That's politics as usual. Hacking into your opponent's email systems? Not business as usual. Buying the fruit of such information obtained by a hostile foreign government with promises of favorable political treatment? Not business as usual. Agents of hostile foreign powers pretending to be Americans creating groups and disseminating information with the express purpose of swaying the election? Not business as usual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2017 14:34:40 GMT -5
As a side note, I increasingly think the electoral system needs some rethinking. It was originally set up, at least in large part, NOT so that electors could blindly go along with whatever voters in their district said, but so that they could act as a check if voters unwisely fell for a demagogue or someone unfit to be president. The founders didn't quite trust the regular guy voters, and wanted to have something in place to protect them from their own potential gullibility. And yeah, the electors aren't serving that function any more. Now it's expected -- demanded -- that they'll do whatever voters in their district decree. And taking that aside, why on earth should insentient areas of land count so much more more than the percentage of actual humans living on them when it comes to picking a president? Let's pretend for a moment that it wasn't so close. Let's say two-thirds of the population lived in New York and California. They all voted for the Blue party. The other third was scattered over the U.S. They went for the Red party. Would it be right for one third of the population to decide who rules the other two-thirds because of where they all happen to live? That's what's happening now, only the numbers are closer. (The Senate is a different beast, of course. It was set up so each state had equal representation. But the House and the Presidential elections are not set up that way. Each state doesn't get an equal number of electoral votes, nor does each get an equal number of reps in the House. They're set up so each state gets a voice in proportion to its population.)
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 3, 2017 14:56:21 GMT -5
In regards to the “popular vote”, it don't matter. The populations of one or two states ought not to be able to lord over the remaining majority of states. That's probably why our election system was set up the way it is. What difference does it make about the criteria people use to make their voting decision? Is there a law or rule somewhere that people can only use a sanctioned system for making a decision on who to vote for? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all, lip stick and all. Russian, Republican, Democrat, Corporations, all flood the senses' with propaganda. I personally don't see the difference between them. They all reach millions of people with similar goals in mind. We just don't know how it affected voters, and whether it did so enough to sway the election. I don't see how we can ever know that, which is why it's silly (IMO) to argue that the election results aren't legitimate based on the fact that there was Russian interference. Trump won the electoral college, though he lost the popular vote. I don't think we can or should undo the election results simply because Russia put an oar in. My argument is not that we undo the election results. What we DO know is that Russia tried to interfere with our election in favor of Trump. I don't see how anyone rational can deny that. And they did their best to stir up differences between Americans and set us at each other's throats more than we were already. We should all care, whether we like our current president or loathe him, that a hostile power did that. We should strive to ensure it doesn't happen again. Tabloids issuing propaganda is one thing. Hostile foreign powers doing it, especially covertly, especially in cooperation with a campaign? Quite another. If Mueller's investigation turns up that some in either campaign actively helped or encouraged Russia to do that, we should all care about that, too. (Especially if it turns out that our president himself did so.) Hence the investigation. If it turns out that Trump DID collude with Russia to sway the election, while it's not grounds to have a do-over on the election, I'd say it is sufficient grounds for impeachment. It doesn't matter whether it did, in fact, make a difference in the election. The attempt is what matters, not the success of the attempt. Of course, as some of you will hasten to point out, that doesn't mean that this Congress will impeach. Indeed, I rather suspect that Trump could shoot down kindergarteners for sport and this particular Congress wouldn't impeach. But (1) that could change in 2018, and (2) the verdict of history could be pretty brutal if Congress were to ignore actual criminal actions to get in tax reform and more conservative judges. ETA: Finally, I must add: Digging up information on your opponent is not the same as colluding with a foreign power. Both campaigns actively sought to dig up dirt on the other. That's politics as usual. Hacking into your opponent's email systems? Not business as usual. Buying the fruit of such information obtained by a hostile foreign government with promises of favorable political treatment? Not business as usual. Agents of hostile foreign powers pretending to be Americans creating groups and disseminating information with the express purpose of swaying the election? Not business as usual. You see the problem I have with all this, is that the DNC/RNC have been stirring the pot for ever. Keeping citizens at each others throats. You seem to be saying this is okay. But if a third party come in and stirs up the pot (Russia), then it becomes intolerable and as a nation we need to go ape shit over it? A short story from my childhood. My dad would whip myself and my siblings with his belt or a switch leaving welts across our backs and snaking across our shoulders and down our chest. He thought that was okay. But when another adult took a turn at whipping us, like a teacher or principal or whatever, he would go crazy with rage that another adult would whip his kids. This current political situation seems to be the same thing to me. I don't support it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2017 15:11:10 GMT -5
You see the problem I have with all this, is that the DNC/RNC have been stirring the pot for ever. Keeping citizens at each others throats. You seem to be saying this is okay. But if a third party come in and stirs up the pot (Russia), then it becomes intolerable and as a nation we need to go ape shit over it? Define "okay". And define what they are doing. Negative attack ads by campaigns using truthful information? I'm not a huge fan of attack ads, actually, but this is totally legit. And indeed, useful -- if you have a candidate who has done dishonest or stupid things, people deserve to know. If they are advocating policies that would hurt certain groups of people, or unfairly advantage others, this is legit info that voters should know. Fake or distorted information by campaigns? That's bad. It should be countered by discrediting that info and putting out the real facts. But hacking emails? That's an actual illegal act. Selling future political favors to a hostile power (or any power, for that matter) to obtain such information and win an election? That's bad for the entire country. And that's what we're talking about here, not just negative info campaigns use against each other. (The latter has been going on since the very first elections, and it will always be so.) And as far as it not mattering who puts out the false information and drums up bad feelings... Really? Let's say you and a neighbor are engaged in a dispute. Various parties purporting to be other neighbors speak out on the internet, on media, etc., weighing into the dispute, alleging bad behavior on your part that has caused them to support your neighbor's side of the dispute. Some community board hears that information. Later, they decide against you in the dispute. You can't be sure one way or another whether they believed the info. And now you're at loggerheads with not only the neighbor you were engaged in the dispute with, but all your neighbors are at arms against you and each other. Then it turns out those weren't your other neighbors weighing in after all. They were actually some business enemy of yours, hoping you'll lose your shirt so he can do a hostile takeover of your business. Does it matter that the person putting out that info was not a neighbor, but instead was a business enemy hoping to sway the dispute for his own benefit? What if it turned out that the neighbor on the other side of the dispute knew all the time that it was your business enemy hoping to crush you, and actively encouraged it -- or even paid him to continue?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2017 15:25:44 GMT -5
Finally, taking aside whether you care who is putting out the information and whether it swayed the election --
Do you not think it matters if a campaign promised something to a hostile foreign power in return for the information, assuming that candidate won the election?
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 3, 2017 15:46:37 GMT -5
Define "okay". And define what they are doing. Negative attack ads by campaigns using truthful information? I'm not a huge fan of attack ads, actually, but this is totally legit. And indeed, useful -- if you have a candidate who has done dishonest or stupid things, people deserve to know. If they are advocating policies that would hurt certain groups of people, or unfairly advantage others, this is legit info that voters should know. Fake or distorted information by campaigns? That's bad. It should be countered by discrediting that info and putting out the real facts. But hacking emails? That's an actual illegal act. Selling future political favors to a hostile power (or any power, for that matter) to obtain such information and win an election? That's bad for the entire country. If I could include the losers along with the winners of a campaigns, I would agree with you. Yes I don't usually like to do hypothetical situations, but when it comes down to it I don't care who jammed a shiv between my shoulder blades. All I care about is that the deed was done and I got screwed.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 3, 2017 15:55:55 GMT -5
Finally, taking aside whether you care who is putting out the information and whether it swayed the election -- Do you not think it matters if a campaign promised something to a hostile foreign power in return for the information, assuming that candidate won the election? I view a foreign power the same as a corporate power. I would be happy if all these moneyed entities were 86ed out of our election system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2017 16:06:52 GMT -5
I don't usually like to do hypothetical situations, but when it comes down to it I don't care who jammed a shiv between my shoulder blades. All I care about is that the deed was done and I got screwed. Since you're moving to murder hypotheticals -- let's say a woman is found murdered in her bed. It's been set up to look like it was a home invasion, done by a stranger. It later turns out that it was the woman's husband, murdering her for the life insurance money. No difference? Or let's say it's set up to look like an accident. Or self defense, or a heat of the moment argument gone wrong. But it wasn't -- it was a cold-blooded set up for personal gain. No difference? I'm going to disagree with you on all of my hypotheticals. I'm just curious. To me, the perpetrator and the motive DO make a difference. Finally, taking aside whether you care who is putting out the information and whether it swayed the election -- Do you not think it matters if a campaign promised something to a hostile foreign power in return for the information, assuming that candidate won the election? I view a foreign power the same as a corporate power. I would be happy if all these moneyed entities were 86ed out of our election system. Don't exactly agree they're equally bad, since the former is treasonous and the latter is not, the former could engage us in a war, whereas the latter could not, etc. But I agree that a candidate promising favorable treatment to a corporation in return for information that corporation illegally obtained on his opponent is a bad thing. Do you agree that's bad?
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 3, 2017 16:41:22 GMT -5
I don't usually like to do hypothetical situations, but when it comes down to it I don't care who jammed a shiv between my shoulder blades. All I care about is that the deed was done and I got screwed. Since you're moving to murder hypotheticals -- Holly cow Cas,you must have been jonesing for this board pretty bad the last couple of days ((smile))I wasn't attempting a murder hypothetical, I was attempting a figure of speech. Dead is dead.Survivors have their own agenda. The whole Iraqi fiasco comes to mind, what with Darth Cheney and crew. fucking Obama.. Edit to add I'm very anti citizens united
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2017 13:56:46 GMT -5
Well. Okay. Disagree, obviously. But that was interesting. So. Much. News. These things all deserve separate threads, probably, but I have plans for the afternoon and evening and I want to bring this stuff up while I'm thinking of it. Two rumors afloat -- one, that Flynn's indictment is coming, maybe as soon as this coming week, and two, that Flynn is cooperating and flipped a while ago. I'm betting on the latter, although I suppose it doesn't necessarily rule out the former. www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-11-02/what-paul-manaforts-indictment-means-for-michael-flynnAnother rumor, if it hasn't been mentioned, is that Papadopoulos was wearing a wire between this summer and October. I don't find that hard to believe, but we'll see. www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/10/30/george-papadopoulos-wire-mueller-investigation-tsr.cnnLooking like Sessions may have committed perjury... www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/jeff-sessions-carter-page-russia-investigationCarter Page. He's dangerously stupid, amirite? www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/carter-page-gives-another-awesomely-stupid-interviewFinally, three Republicans introduced a measure to remove Mueller. www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11 I doubt it will fly, but we'll see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 11:21:56 GMT -5
Breaking: Mueller allegedly has sufficient evidence to bring charges against Flynn. www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/mueller-has-enough-evidence-bring-charges-flynn-investigation-n817666To note, Mueller was photographed heading into work at 7 am Friday morning. I wonder if that is usual, or if it related to a Flynn indictment. Rumor has it the Manafort leak came from law enforcement, not the Mueller team (which I can believe, since pretty clearly the team knows how to keep things secret when they want to do so). Once you go for an indictment, Mueller has to go beyond the team. It would make sense that the leaks are arising at that point -- Mueller can't exercise the same degree of control.
|
|