Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: Hey... if you claimed that the 'ghazi hearings were a waste of time... you might be a wee bit inconsistent advocating for hearing over Flynn's/Trump's Russian connections.
Only if you ignore the substance of what is being investigated. Benghazi was seven investigations on the question of 'did government feth up in protecting an consulate?'. The answer should have been 'yes, duh, a fething consulate got overrun and people died it was a feth up, but US government is a vast organisation spread across the globe so there will be localised feth ups from time to time’. Unfortunately we’re dealing with the modern day Republican party so that wasn’t enough, and so instead of that simple obvious answer we got this vast fishing exercise that toyed around with trying to prove that Obama and later Clinton were somehow acting to harm the defence of the consulate, that was dragged out over seven inquiries, with the only result the unrelated thing about Clinton’s email server.
Funny... we're STILL finding new information about that aftermath... TL;DR: Whitehouse knew it wasn't a spontaneous protest, yet sent Susan Rice to lie to the public few days later ... not to mention, found their patsy. But since its *your* team, you shrugged your shoulders and point out Republican overreach.
We just had a recent feth up in the early days of this Trump administration, with the SEAL raid. We could hold a similar inquiry asking if government fethed up. And the answer would also come back ‘yes, obviously, they relied on old intel and got a SEAL and a bunch of civilians killed’. Because the Democrats aren’t similarly crazy we aren’t seeing 7 inquiries in to that, trying to prove that Trump was secretly trying to get Navy SEALs killed or something.
The aspects of this raid is still very much top secret... which many believed that it was compromised from the start.
Besides, this was planned by military peeps and wasn't micromanaged by Whitehouse peeps.
But the question in to Flynn actually has questions that need answering. Why did Flynn make the call, was he directed to communicate Trump’s plans to the Kremlin? When did the Whitehouse know that Flynn had lied, and why did they do nothing until the Washington Post story? Those are important questions with major implications, and the Republican response is to ask none of them.
Sure. I'd advocate in releasing the transcripts. It's been leaked already... so it's interesting that it's not made public yet. That seems to me that it's oblique/diplo-speak enough that it could be interpreted in different ways, rather than 'Flynn definitively said x'. Therefore, the leaker is releasing the information in an abstract manner to maximize the damage.
It is a fething shameful dereliction of duty, and it is entirely for partisan reasons. And you’re okay with it.
I see you've made a decision in a partisan manner.
You didn't post anything. Your post consisted of;
Sentence 1 - you're naive
Sentence 2 - you don't know how US politics or conservatism works
Sentence 3 - US conservatism is different
Sentence 4 - I am butthurt because in an earlier post sebster pointed out how much an argument I made gets at the core of what is wrong with modern US conservatism.
So all I could do is point out sentences 1, 2 and 4 contain no content, and that sentence 3 was an attempt at content, but was unfortunately an old cliche with little reality and no relevance to the conversation at hand.
If you want a substantive response, you need to make substantive posts.
In my nearly 50 years on God's green Earth, I learned that little truth. Politics is a dirty game regardless of what level of government, and "principled politicians" either have to adapt to the game, or get eaten alive by the wolves like a babe in the woods.
I’m going to be blunt – 50 years and extensive experience in politics, and the insight you have to show for it is no different to what most highschoolers say to sound bitter and above the system.
I have worked in government for most of my professional career. And what I’ve learned is that reality is much more nuanced than your summary above. Dirty tricks to hit your enemy are common, but underhanded collusion, helping out other members of your party or third parties is much more common. Politics is more about making friends than making enemies.
But even in the context of that corrupt behaviour, either explicitly illegal or far more often just unsavoury, there are still expected standards of performance in the job. To put it simply, people accept that you look after your friends when you’re in the job, but people don’t accept that you might look to reward a foreign power if they engaged in a false news campaign to help you get elected.
It's a well-know fact that being "conservative" in the United States is a different ballgame than say, Europe, where "conservatives" would be considered more centrist or outright liberal by American standards.
It’s obvious to the point of being a cliché, and also meaningless to my post.
The rank and file John. Q. Conservative on street hasn't evolved that much in ideology since the the late 1950's to late 1960's,
You’re trying to argue that movement conservatism, Reagan conservatives, or the entry of the religious right in to politics didn’t change US conservative politics all that much. Or that recent changes with the rise of the Tea Party and the Freedom caucus weren’t major changes in US politics. This is obviously ridiculous.
The backlash against the Establishment Right by the Electorate wasn't due to any sort of ignorance as you seem to contend, but intended to send a clear message to the Establishment politicians in both parties that identify as (or cynically play the part of) "conservative". That message is very clearly "WE ARE TIRED OF YOUR . Straighten up and fly right, or we'll keep voting against you and your aspirations".
“We are tired of your gak” is nothing but emotive nothingness. It is devoid of policy or any other specifics. It is the very definition of ignorance. And it is a kind of ignorance that drives much of the Republican base – “I am very angry about lots of unspecified things and demand unspecified answers to them” is only going to produce candidate willing to pretend to share the base’s vague anger and glibly tell them platitudes that will solve all their vague problems. It gives you Trump, and before that it gave you Trump Light, known as GW Bush.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Kid Rock’s Name Tossed Out For Possible Senate Run
Senator Robert Ritchie?
Among the names being thrown around as a possible Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate … is Kid Rock, according to freep.com. He would have to challenge Debbie Stabenow, a powerful Democrat who has held the seat since 2000.
Tea party activist Wes Nakagiri brought it up over the weekend at the Michigan Republican Party Convention. He suggested the made-in-Michigan rock star would create the same kind of excitement as Donald Trump and believes he could help the GOP reclaim a U.S. Senate seat for the first time in over 20 years.
Kid Rock was an avid supporter of Donald Trump, speaking out on his behalf and appearing at a rally with him. He can sell out stadiums, but does he have that certain “bawitdaba” it takes to legislate?
So far, no comment from Kid Rock.
Again... wut.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 04:49:55
He's about as qualified for the job as Trump was, so why not? This is the point that Your Team has reached.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
You can't really elect a guy whose only qualification is being rich and famous, and then go "wut" when people talk about maybe electing a guy who is rich and famous
Compel wrote: Worst case scenario there, Sebster, if you're wrong you've got a good plotline for a script for "House of Cards."
House of Cards showed a complex and mostly antagonistic relationship with Russia, consistent with inherited memory from the Cold War, combined with tension as Russia attempts to return to a place of serious global importance.
While House of Cards was very silly in many ways, it turns out that if nothing else it is more realistic than this "Trump is president" show is.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
LordofHats wrote: You can't really elect a guy whose only qualification is being rich and famous, and then go "wut" when people talk about maybe electing a guy who is rich and famous
Ya know what... if he promise to sing American Badass on the Senate floor... I'd pay to see that.
Cruz read Green Eggs & Ham on the floor... so why not?
whembly wrote: I think we're getting wires crossed here...
There are no indication that there were any 'negotiations' on that call... just some oblique reference to the sanctions (some sources says the ambassador off-handedly brought it up).
The difference is that you're taking the administration at face value, whereas I'm seeing a set of lies being steadily walked back . When they said Flynn talked to Russia on the day of the new sanctions Flynn said he didn't talk about the sanctions, did you believe that? When the story of the transcript broke and Flynn changed his story to 'well gee I just don't know if we talked about it', did you believe that? Now that the story has changed to 'okay yeah it was discussed but it was Russia that rose the issue and Flynn didn't give a response'... you believe that.
Also, would it change your mind to know that Trump and the Whitehouse were debating what to do about Flynn's lie weeks ago and did nothing, not until the WaPo story broke. Because despite Trump lying about not knowing about Flynn's actual call until last week, we know that the FBI raised this with him in January.
I mean, there's a point in bad relationships where the person constantly believing and then ignoring or forgiving the lies is to blame as much as the person doing the lying.
That's a whole lotta assertion without a scintilla of supporting evidence.
Of course, it's a theory based on available information. But it is the theory that fits what we've seen. The official version is obviously fictionalised bs, shoveled out to try and kill this thing ASAP.
I mean seriously, you know Trump well enough at this point, which of these things do you think is more likely;
1) Trump did some dodgy gak, and when part of it was uncovered he made up a bs story and cut a guy loose to try and bury any further investigations.
OR
2) Trump has no contact with Russia, and was so shocked when one of his staff told a lie that he demanded his resignation, because Trump is all about trust and honesty.
Seriously.
Again, assertions...
You think Russia publishing all those fake stories was just a happy bonus Trump stumbled on. And that Russia hacking both the GOP and DNC, and only releasing the Clinton stuff was another happy bonus. And Trump disagreeing with the CIA report on the hacking was just his personal review of the intel made entirely independent of any relationship he might have with Putin. And that all the tweets and statements he's given lauding Putin were unrelated to all of the above. And having Flynn make contacts with Russia throughout the campaign is just another coincidence. All of this culminated in Flynn talking with Russia on the day that Obama announced diplomatic sanctions, in which the sanctions were raised in some form or another, likely to say Trump will walk the sanctions back, after which Russia announced it would do nothing in response, and then Trump that night praised Putin's response.
Holy gak mate, there's like seven different happy coincidences in there. At what point does seeing seven different plumes of smoke cause a person to conclude there's a fire?
Then, someone leaked the abstract of the call to the public. That's big... what that means is that either there are rogue IC operatives or Obama loyalists working to undermine the Trump administration. (according to WashPo, they have nine sources!).
'rogue Obama operatives' is an silly invention to drag this down to a partisan level to bury it. The way Trump has treated the IC is more than enough to make them hate Trump without having any kind of loyalty to Obama. Trump has publicly rejected their expertise and their findings, he's publicly berated their performance, and make a mockery of their monument to fallen agents.
Second up, there needs to be no personal motive to leaking that there is a member of the cabinet who is a national security threat when the Whitehouse is doing nothing about it. A simple concern for removing the national security threat would be enough. Hell, if they actually had it out for Trump they would have let Trump and his whitehouse sit on this for another 6 months then leak it, to make the political blowback on Trump much, much bigger.
Also, remember when Comey's letter to the senate committee was leaked. Somehow you spent exactly zero seconds concerning yourself with who leaked that. And yet this time around, on a matter of national security, you concern yourself with who leaked that there was a national security threat. Wonder what the difference is?
And? We still don't have the transcripts...
You don't need to have the transcripts to know that Flynn talking to Russia on his own behalf with no knowledge of Trump's intentions, and giving a 'non-committal' answer on what Trump will do about Obama's sanctions, and Putin then doing nothing about the sanctions, and Trump praising that is obvious bs.
I think you're giving Trumpo and his peeps waaaaaaay too much credit here...
I think you didn't answer the question. Give an actual answer to the question, and see if you can find a coherent story in which Trump isn't covering this up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: But since its *your* team, you shrugged your shoulders and point out Republican overreach.
It’s not my fething team. feth.
Besides, this was planned by military peeps and wasn't micromanaged by Whitehouse peeps.
That’s correct. That’s how it works with big organisations, the most senior levels of executive control simply cannot be across every detail of every lower level function. This is why it is either ignorant or partisan to pick out localised government feth ups and try and drag them all the way to the presidency. It would be partisan bs if Democrats tried this over the SEAL raid, and it was partisan bs when Republicans did it over Benghazi.
But the conversations of a member of cabinet with a foreign power are not low level feth ups. A man directly appointed by Trump was making secret communications to the Russians, and lied about those. The idea that something like that shouldn’t be investigated further is absurd.
Sure. I'd advocate in releasing the transcripts. It's been leaked already... so it's interesting that it's not made public yet. That seems to me that it's oblique/diplo-speak enough that it could be interpreted in different ways, rather than 'Flynn definitively said x'. Therefore, the leaker is releasing the information in an abstract manner to maximize the damage.
It was a call secretly recorded by most likely the NSA. They’re not going to release the call publicly unless they have to.
I see you've made a decision in a partisan manner.
You don’t have to care about any NFL teams to know that the Detroit Lions have a long history of sucking. There are thigns that exist outside of partisan politics for some of us.
“The Republicans are a fething disaster” is not a partisan cheer for the Democrats. It is a comment on what the Republican party is, and a call for Republicans and conservatives to demand something better.
Because here’s the thing – last time Republicans controlled the whitehouse and sucked so bad that they got annihilated in elections… nothing really changed. Republicans just retreated in to an obstructive stance, played up some stupid fringe social issues and eventually Democrats got complacent and now Republicans have returned to power. Probably the same thing will happen again. I don’t want the world’s most powerful country to alternate between periods of mostly okayish Democrats and periods of flying rodent gak Republicans.
This is very dangerous for lots of reasons. The first is that Democrats are now responding with some crazy of their own. We may move to a state of flying rodent gak Democrats and flying rodent gak Republicans alternating power. That would be even worse.
The second is that Republicans might actually implode. The Republican party is increasingly divorced from the actual policies of the party, and instead is kept loyal with increasingly radical nonsense, and antagonism towards their political enemies. This is very unstable, and we’ve signs of that instability in the last few election cycles (before the 2016 primary farce, the 2012 primary was considered as bad as it could get). If the Republicans did implode that would leave Democrats as the one legitimate party, for at least some time. That would also be absolutely terrible for the US.
The last option, the one I’m hoping the party will take, is for the Republican party to start normalising. Rebuild itself around a set of conservative values that are actually supported by a decent chunk of the population. For instance, try going for tax cuts that go to the middle class, instead of tax cuts for the rich. Return to accepting normal political practice, not this calvinball bs you celebrate. Stop making up insane lies about Democrats. Be a normal political party again. You will still win your share of elections, probably more than your share. And when you win, you won’t have to suffer through the embarrassment of someone like Trump. And you will reduce the risk that Democrats might go as crazy as you are, and you won’t have to worry about when this finely tuned ball of crazy will actually collapse in itself. And all it will take is just a bit of honesty about where the Republican party is right now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 05:57:10
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: The last option, the one I’m hoping the party will take, is for the Republican party to start normalising. Rebuild itself around a set of conservative values that are actually supported by a decent chunk of the population. For instance, try going for tax cuts that go to the middle class, instead of tax cuts for the rich. Return to accepting normal political practice, not this calvinball bs you celebrate. Stop making up insane lies about Democrats. Be a normal political party again. You will still win your share of elections, probably more than your share. And when you win, you won’t have to suffer through the embarrassment of someone like Trump. And you will reduce the risk that Democrats might go as crazy as you are, and you won’t have to worry about when this finely tuned ball of crazy will actually collapse in itself. And all it will take is just a bit of honesty about where the Republican party is right now.
That would be the result we need, not the one we deserve.
Basically, Trump "demands" Russia hands back the Crimea peninsula to Ukraine and "expects" Russia to deescalate as soon as possible. According to Sean Spicer, he also is looking forward to a "good relationship with Russia".
Oh boy, again. I am in favour of Russia being pressured for their expansionist streak throughout old Soviet vassals, but I'm not sure I'm a big fan of Trump doing that with his ego, right now. For all we know he might call Putin like he called Enrique Pena Nieto and ramble something about maybe needing some US Marines to clear things up...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 07:16:17
I think of Sean Spicer said something that Trump vehemently disagreed with, we'd hear about it, either via Twitter or indirectly over spats with other aides of his, don't you think?
Yeah, and the reality is the party isn't going to reform itself from the top down. Most federal Republican congress critters are in deep with big money, and those donors want tax cuts and deregulation. And with a polarised, badly distributed electorate most Republicans will face little threat in the general election, even in a whitewash. Especially at the house level. I mean in 2008 Republicans got pasted as much as anyone is ever going to get pasted, Democrats won the total votes in the house by 11 points, by 13 million votes... and a whopping 21 seats changed, Republicans still held 40% of seats. More Republicans lost their seats in the 2010 and 2012 primaries to the Tea Party, than lost seats in the big Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008.
So Republican critters are motivated by money from the rich end of town, and only afraid of electoral consequences from the far right in primaries. The end result is the policy mess we see - a mix of hard right social causes to appeal to primary voters, and tax cuts for the rich to appease the donors. Working class and middle class, non-ideological Republicans just get taken for suckers.
These incentives won't change without total reform of the system, which ain't happening. The far right isn't going to get more sensible, and the rich aren't going to stop paying money to get more tax cuts. It only changes when the middle stops accepting what the GOP is serving up.
Still waiting for the slightest sign that that might ever happen.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Trump tweeted:The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?
Another of those tweets trying to mark a news or intelligence report on wrongdoing or possible misconduct as illegal, and the leak itself as a security risk for the country. I'd say it's the other way around...
Now, obviously to be taken with a grain of salt, all it says is that there were contacts without knowing exactly what was discussed, but it certainly deepens the rabbit hole of insanity with this election.
For an administration that just barely finished its third week, things are certainly...awkward. I'm having trouble seeing this administration govern just about anything at this point, regardless of political opposition, if this continues. And there's no end in sight.
The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.
Real smoking gun article...
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.
Real smoking gun article...
Colluding over hacking and efforts to influence the election is not the only potentially damaging activities the Trump team could have been doing.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
cuda1179 wrote: Was Trump himself involved? Don't know, could just be the peons under him.
Trump brought in Manafort, who's connections to Russia forced his resignation from Trump's campaign.
Trump brought in Flynn, who engaged in a series of secret calls with Russia. Trump knew about the calls but did nothing for weeks, until the issue came out in the media.
Trump's Sec of State, Rex Tillerson, has long ties to Russia and their major oil company Gazprom. Trump's foreign policy advisor Michael Page also has direct business ties to Gazprom.
Trump repeatedly denied Russian involvement in the election, despite absolute statements from the intelligence community.
Trump has positive comments about Putin going back to 2007. Over that time he's said Putin waz loved in his country, praised Putin's intelligence, and defended Putin against claims that he killed journalists.
Yeah, its a real mystery if Trump has been involved in the contacts with Russia.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.
Real smoking gun article...
Colluding over hacking and efforts to influence the election is not the only potentially damaging activities the Trump team could have been doing.
So, when they find evidence let me know. Otherwise, articles like the one linked, with click bait headlines, that then go on to state "No evidence found" don't really make the point.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
She has a plethora of hits out there. That is just her latest.
In the midst of a series of revelations about collusion between a Republican president and Russia, you want to point out a congress woman fell for a prank call.
What the actual feth, mate.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
She has a plethora of hits out there. That is just her latest.
In the midst of a series of revelations about collusion between a Republican president and Russia, you want to point out a congress woman fell for a prank call.
What the actual feth, mate.
And it really wasn't even that good a joke. Until she's stood up in congress and asked what the government is going to do about the dangers of Cake, which is not natural but a made up drug, then I'm sorry but quite frankly I'm not impressed.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Did it cause permanent damage to your Shatner's Bassoon?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's put it another way. What evidence is there that Clinton may have colluded with the Russians to influence the election?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 13:15:58
if only someone had mentioned the Russian interference before.....
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
. Straighten up and fly right, or we'll keep voting against you and your aspirations".
According to Sean Spicer, he also is looking forward to a "good relationship with Russia".
