Politics 2017 part V

[Hurlshort]

If a guy is deported 15 times, that shows a major problem with how both the US and Mexico are handling these repeat offenders. A wall isn't going to stop a person like that, instead we need an effective justice system that works in conjunction with Mexico.

 

edit: Think of it this way, if the guy was not illegal, but had simply been in an out of jail 15 times over the last 15 years, is it any less tragic? 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Gromnir]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/inside-trump%E2%80%99s-anger-and-impatience-%E2%80%94-and-his-sudden-decision-to-fire-comey/ar-BBAZWM9?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-decision-idUSKBN1862WP

 

if trump were livid 'bout comey not stopping press leaks, the last couple days will have the chief executive apoplectic.  

 

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety.  is hard to imagine such a candidate being any less problematic for trump.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Blarghagh]

He'd fire all Congress if he could.

"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us."

 

On a side note, I'm a bit concerned with how powerfully the phrase 'alternative facts' has entered everyone's daily lexicon. The more casually it's used, the more these flat-out lies are associated unconsciously with the word facts, both giving value to lies that they should not possess as well as decreasing value of anything that is described as an actual fact.

[Leferd]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/inside-trump%E2%80%99s-anger-and-impatience-%E2%80%94-and-his-sudden-decision-to-fire-comey/ar-BBAZWM9?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-decision-idUSKBN1862WP

 

if trump were livid 'bout comey not stopping press leaks, the last couple days will have the chief executive apoplectic.  

 

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety.  is hard to imagine such a candidate being any less problematic for trump.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

This is pretty telling. 30 sources. Trump's got his work cut out for him if he wants to patch those leaks.

 

“He wasn’t doing a good job,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “Very simple. He wasn’t doing a good job.”

 

But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.

 

Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.

One intelligence official who works on Russian espionage matters said they were more determined than ever to pursue such cases. Another said Comey’s firing and the subsequent comments from the White House are attacks that won’t soon be forgotten. Trump had “essentially declared war on a lot of people at the FBI,” one official said. “I think there will be a concerted effort to respond over time in kind.”

[Meshugger]

Hahaha, what a ****show over someone who would've been fired either way no matter the election outcome.

 

I do hope that there is some serious academic research in archiving the opinions of experts, how the news was portrayed, how congress motivated their vote during the reign of Trump. A good perspective is needed.

[Bartimaeus]

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety

 

...Avoiding impropriety? This is Trump we're talking about: I'll be surprised if he doesn't initially try one of his sons, Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, or even Putin himself.

[Guard Dog]

 

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety

 

...Avoiding impropriety? This is Trump we're talking about: I'll be surprised if he doesn't initially try one of his sons, Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, or even Putin himself.

 

My money is on Guliani or the ex-Sheriff from Milwaukee. In truth either would be qualified and might do good service in the position but I can't say either would be entirely independent. I can almost guarantee is won't be the deputy director McCabe. In fact he should probably be packing his desk right about now. Not saying he should be gone... but he almost certainly will be. 

[Guard Dog]

This endless impeachment talk is getting really tiresome. This used to be a word never heard outside the beltway of Sodom-on-the-Potomac. The only two times it's been used has been for Presidents who did violate the law but removal from office would have been excessive.The one time it would have been appropriate the President resigned and fled to California. But since Clinton it gets rolled out after every single election by the opposition party because they are not happy with how the election turned out. And it is getting very old. 

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article149758184.html

[Malcador]

 

 

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety

...Avoiding impropriety? This is Trump we're talking about: I'll be surprised if he doesn't initially try one of his sons, Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, or even Putin himself.

My money is on Guliani or the ex-Sheriff from Milwaukee. In truth either would be qualified and might do good service in the position but I can't say either would be entirely independent. I can almost guarantee is won't be the deputy director McCabe. In fact he should probably be packing his desk right about now. Not saying he should be gone... but he almost certainly will be.

Giuliani might not be in it, too blatant a yes man for the optics.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety

...Avoiding impropriety? This is Trump we're talking about: I'll be surprised if he doesn't initially try one of his sons, Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, or even Putin himself.

My money is on Guliani or the ex-Sheriff from Milwaukee. In truth either would be qualified and might do good service in the position but I can't say either would be entirely independent. I can almost guarantee is won't be the deputy director McCabe. In fact he should probably be packing his desk right about now. Not saying he should be gone... but he almost certainly will be.

Giuliani might not be in it, too blatant a yes man for the optics.

 

True. But I don't think Trump will concern himself over optics. I think he rewards loyalty even at the expense of ability. Not saying Guliani does not have that though. He does come from a law enforcement background. And I can't think of anyone else in Trumps inner circle that is more qualified. If that ends up mattering. There have been purely political appointments to that post. Webster from the Carter years comes to mind. Even Comey was a little thin on Law Enforcement cred. I guess we're long gone from the days when the Bureau promoted from within. Everything is political now. That's why it's such a damned mess!

[Malcador]

Well guess we can be glad if it's anyome but Joe Arpaio

[Raithe]

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety

 

 

...Avoiding impropriety? This is Trump we're talking about: I'll be surprised if he doesn't initially try one of his sons, Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, or even Putin himself.

Alex Jones in charge of the FBI would be awesome.

[Meshugger]

 

 

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety

 

...Avoiding impropriety? This is Trump we're talking about: I'll be surprised if he doesn't initially try one of his sons, Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, or even Putin himself.

Alex Jones in charge of the FBI would be awesome.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D10mHOqSfd8

 

The music, Joe's reaction, everything.

[Hurlshort]

Jesus, that is a crazy clip.

[Gromnir]

This endless impeachment talk is getting really tiresome. This used to be a word never heard outside the beltway of Sodom-on-the-Potomac. The only two times it's been used has been for Presidents who did violate the law but removal from office would have been excessive.The one time it would have been appropriate the President resigned and fled to California. But since Clinton it gets rolled out after every single election by the opposition party because they are not happy with how the election turned out. And it is getting very old. 

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article149758184.html

calls for impeachment following nixon has actual been de rigueur.  ford faced widespread calls for impeachment by pardoning nixon. carter faced calls for impeachment, though based on our reading, "cartergate" always seemed more o' a lunatic fringe kinda movement. iran-contra inspired loud calls for impeachment o' reagan. clinton?  'nuff said. you will find numerous articles 'bout attempts to generate impeachment for george w. bush, and is claims o' obama refusal to enforce syrian red-line policy were 'cause gop senators had threatened impeachment if american soldiers died 'cause o' syria. 

 

andrew johnson and john tyler faced serious attempts to bring 'bout impeachment, but fdr also had a vocal minority dogged making claims o' presidential excess requiring impeachment to clarify. there were calls for lincoln impeachment, but he dealt with such by throwing journalists in prison, so might not be an ideal example.  

 

regardless, am thinking a post nixon president who do not hear for impeachment beyond mere whispers is gonna be the exception.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

If a guy is deported 15 times, that shows a major problem with how both the US and Mexico are handling these repeat offenders. A wall isn't going to stop a person like that, instead we need an effective justice system that works in conjunction with Mexico.

 

edit: Think of it this way, if the guy was not illegal, but had simply been in an out of jail 15 times over the last 15 years, is it any less tragic?

Of course a secure border would've stopped him. Right now he can just walk back over any portion of the border that has no security at all. What would you do, ask him nicely not to come back?

[Guard Dog]

I remember Iran Contra pretty well. I believe that was the birthplace of the expressions "what did you know and when did you now it" and "it's not the weight of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge that matters" 

 

I also recall the attempts of GWB and Obama that were laughable. I seem to remember posting in this very forum "incompetence is not grounds for impeachment". 

 

Bringing it up again and again only reinforces the notion that we have no political leadership. Only two tribes of monkeys screaming and throwing great handfuls of s--t at each other.

 

And not a nickel's worth of actual difference between them. One tribe oppresses some liberties while championing others and vice versa. No matter who wins government grows, liberty shrinks, and bombs fall in places that have zero to do with actual US national interest and kill people who have nothing to do with anything. Didn't Trump just expend nearly a billion dollars in cruise missiles? And more actual terrorists were killed by hogs than by missiles.

 

In 2018 and 2020 we'll have an election but unless a differing political philosophy is finally heard from the winners will be a tribe of screaming s--t throwing monkeys. It's pretty depressing really.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety

...Avoiding impropriety? This is Trump we're talking about: I'll be surprised if he doesn't initially try one of his sons, Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, or even Putin himself.

Alex Jones in charge of the FBI would be awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D10mHOqSfd8

 

The music, Joe's reaction, everything.

Man Alexander Brandon is talented.

[Gromnir]

laughable or not, the cries for impeachment is nothing new.  

 

 

part o' the problem is the Constitution itself which makes it less than easy for even scholars to say with certainty when impeachment is appropriate.  doesn't bother us when a handful o' Congressmen cry for impeachment.  would bother us if such Congressmen were too afraid to voice concerns.  let the fringe-dwellers throw their p00p at each other.

 

still, 'cause o' the increased polarization o' US political parties, the fringe has become a far more densely populated place.

 

that being said, while the idea o' weaponizing pigs or bees or cattle or dogs appeals to our sense o' whimsy, am suspecting being able to deliver swine to predictable and efficient take out targets o' opportunity would likely cost more than $1 billion.  wilbur's wreckers, a sounder o' 50 elite warpigs, is dropped into IS held territory where they deliver terrible carnage 'pon terrorists... and dumpsters.  as appealing as we find such a concept, am suspecting cruise missiles remain a cheaper option.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps shouldn't need repeating but the missile strike in syria were clear never intended to cause casualties. the strike were an object lesson in relative power.  syrians and russians were given advanced warning o' an hour, and the target were a military airfield.  such a target, accompanied by warnings, made the possibility o' casualties, particular civilian casualties, near non existent.   cruise missiles ain't meant to destroy airfields, but using such weapon were a powerful message.

 

USA: in one hour i am going to send +50 cruise missiles to one of your airbases, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.  not only do you have no choice but to sit and wait for me to punch you in the face, but you aren't going to do anything to retaliate. oh, and you are about to see just how powerful an ally you have in russia, because they won't lift a finger to help you, not that they could help if they wanted to.  

 

btw, in case it isn't clear, those cruise missiles could just as easily have targeted the homes of every command officer you have left. 

 

have a nice day. 

 

syria: *soft whimpering*

 

russia: hey now, we can spin this.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

 

Of course a secure border would've stopped him. Right now he can just walk back over any portion of the border that has no security at all. What would you do, ask him nicely not to come back?

 

 

Ah yes, that 2,000 mile stretch of land just needs a better wall. That will protect us from the bad people. 

 

I mean, personally I'd rather see us effectively treating people that are clearly societal problems, whether it is mental illness, substance abuse, etc. But I suppose that is a silly use of resources. Let's build a big wall instead!

[Gfted1]

Id rather not squander resources treating other countries societal problems. Give a choice between that and a wall, I choose the wall. Not that that will work either without drone swarms.

[Gromnir]

Id rather not squander resources treating other countries societal problems. Give a choice between that and a wall, I choose the wall. Not that that will work either without drone swarms.

so, squandering billions of dollars on an ineffectual wall is ok?  unforgiving terrain, rivers and private property make a secure border near impossible, but we could understand wanting such a thing if tijuana were lobbing rockets into san diego and mexican suicide bombers were sneaking 'cross the unfenced portions o' the border. such ain't the case.  

 

the majority o' drugs will continue to make their way into the US via trucks/planes. large numbers o' illegal aliens will make their way into the country via similar transportation.  as such, building a largely symbolic multi-billion dollar wall strikes us as, y'know, squandering.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind we ain't one o' those granola-munching californians who see any kinda immigration reform as evil.  a teary-eyed Gromnir, wringing his hands, "why can't we help those poor people instead of deporting them?" nope.  never gonna happen.  we got little sympathy for many illegals who is placing great burdens on our health and education systems. build bridges, not walls. bah.  even so, our recognition o' needed immigration reform don't blind us to the silliness and expense o' the wall.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Chilloutman]

 

Id rather not squander resources treating other countries societal problems. Give a choice between that and a wall, I choose the wall. Not that that will work either without drone swarms.

so, squandering billions of dollars on an ineffectual wall is ok?  unforgiving terrain, rivers and private property make a secure border near impossible

 

China probably didn't get the memo

[Hurlshort]

Id rather not squander resources treating other countries societal problems. Give a choice between that and a wall, I choose the wall. Not that that will work either without drone swarms.

 

According to Trump, 1 million people cross that border legally every day. We do half a trillion dollars worth of business with Mexico. The wall is certainly not going to work, at least not against the type of person that has been deported 15 times. I'd rather us work with Mexico to treat societal problems. Maybe that is just as fantastical as the idea that a wall will solve our problems, but at least it has the chance of benefiting our own society, and is likely a fraction of the cost.