Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 17:54:51 GMT -5
I haven't read your post yet, c.e., -- I will later, but I'm on my way out -- but I'm gonna throw this at you (with apologies to Rob -- I will say upfront that I am not criticizing you on this at all, Rob, as I hope my post will make clear) -- Rob and I were both worked up that day. We were both worked up, in our different ways, about the Parkland shootings and perhaps some other events (it's been quite the eventful time), and both were annoyed with each other. I got upset, and said I needed a break. Rob responded by saying maybe he should just shut down the forum and maybe it wouldn't be here in the morning. We both took a couple of days off, if you didn't notice, not just me. You found my needing a break "concerning" and extreme. But you didn't find Rob saying he might shut the forum down in response to one angry member "concerning." The fact is, he and I were both mad, we both cooled off. Maybe we both overreacted just a leeeeetle bit , I to his post, and he to mine, quite possibly because we were so upset about Parkland. (I admit it, I got emotional about it, and I still am. I spent some time talking to my very beloved teenage niece that day and since then, and jesus, it's just so damn upsetting. And yes, it carried over here. And I know he's got kids and he's upset too.) That's probably as upset as I've ever seen either Rob or me, certainly with each other. And we certainly will spar another day, maybe even about this. But I dunno, I have some confidence that there's enough mutual respect (and liking) that we'll get over it and not hold a grudge. Certainly there is on my part. Even if he unmods me, which he just might. He hasn't said. But my point is this, c.e. Somehow, you saw my "I'm taking a break!" as a yuuuuuge and "concerning" extreme overreaction, but not his "well then, I'm shutting down the forum!". Again I say to you --
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 20:01:17 GMT -5
That person used to be you. I remember her. It is no longer. Oh, I haven't changed a bit. Here's what's changed. Back in those halcyon days of which you speak, there were a few critical differences. The big one was that Obama was president, and it was looking pretty certain (to me, as well as others) that Hillary would be the next president. Therefore, the ones I was most interested in holding accountable at that point in time was them. As a secondary thing, our conversations were taking place in a context where (I felt) a lot of people were cutting Hillary too much slack on some things where she deserved criticism because, heh, they thought she'd bring in policies they'd like (among other things). Sound familiar? Moreover, I frequently found myself in a position where I felt I needed to defend the right of people who planned to vote for anyone other than Hillary to do so, and to defend principled conservatives (which I still do, regularly). It's also the case that I had to be more restrained in expressing my opinions than I do here. So what you saw and approved was me critiquing Hillary on a regular basis, taking on people I thought were being hypocritical or cutting too much slack, and defending some other stuff of which you approved (and which, actually, is stuff I still defend). Now, Trump is in power. I know you don't agree, but I happen to think he's pretty damn awful on just about every level, in a "the emperor is naked" obvious kind of way. Moreover, Republicans hold both houses, and a shitload of stuff has happened over this past year to erase the fragile hopes I had in November 2016 that maybe, just maybe, Trump would turn out better than I feared. Those hopes are gone. IMO, his administration is a freaking mess, and the GOP-controlled Congress just ignores it or kisses his ass. And fuck me, we have three more years of it. So now it's Trump that's coming in for my fire, and those who defend him at every turn and skimp on the criticism. And the fact is, I think Trump is about a million times worse than Hillary. Plus, I'm a lot freer to express my opinions. I'm not that interested in criticizing the Democrats right now, not only because I don't think they hold a damn candle to the Republicans at the moment on the hinky front (time was, I'd have said "yes, both sides," but I really think the GOP has vastly outstripped the Dems this last year or two), but also because the GOP has All. The. Power. And as you'll see in the Memo thread when I get to it (I want to have time to address it properly, and tonight I just want to eat dinner and chill), I think your allegations and Mikey's about Democrat hinkiness leading to the dossier and the Mueller investigation and "ooooh, therefore the investigation is a witch hunt and not to be trusted" are an eyeroll. Actually, they aren't even an eyeroll. Certainly in comparison with the hinky shenanigans the Trump gang was up to, but even notwithstanding that. You misjudged me, yes. Apparently, in a bigly way. But I haven't changed. ETA: You know, perhaps that's not quite right. I am angrier than I've ever been at what is happening in government. But that is because, IMO, there's a hell of a lot more to be angry--and worried--about. This is not a normal administration. It simply isn't.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 8, 2018 19:01:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 19:15:50 GMT -5
I'll make no judgment at this point--IMO, entirely premature and not nearly enough information in the public domain to do so.
We really haven't the foggiest what Mueller has, and he might have many reasons for wanting certain timing.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 9, 2018 6:56:08 GMT -5
No doubt. But I don't think that changes what has happened here: Mueller faces losing control over that timing because of what I think was obviously a shrewd move by Concord, since--as the NRO piece notes--there really was always little chance of Mueller and company pursuing any of these indictments any farther.
If Concord wasn't a shady Russian-owned company, if it was instead a small US company, I think most people would applaud its response and be a little annoyed at a prosecutor who was using strong-arm tactics and failing to fulfill discovery obligations. I mean come on, the indictment has been out since February, the company says "let's do this" to Mueller and the courts, and Mueller's response is "wait, they weren't properly served!" That's some fairly pathetic grasping at straws, and the DC judge rightly denied the delaying tactic.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 28, 2018 7:52:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 18, 2018 15:31:54 GMT -5
Thought this was interesting. Apparently, WH Counsel has been fully cooperating with Mueller's investigation, because he thought that if he didn't, then Trump would set him up to take the fall: www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.htmlThere's no telling what kind of / how strong of a case Mueller is building thanks to this, but it just further highlights for me how monumentally stupid - or at least naive and short-sighted - Trump is:
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Aug 21, 2018 16:11:04 GMT -5
My deleted one? You're right, it had nothing to do with you.
I forgot which page I was on, and when I forgot to quote, it made no sense. So, I deleted it.
|
|