The Political Quinceañera Thread

[Bartimaeus]

Today, he came out and said the opposite: that he would not resign, and he would in fact publicly contradict and provide a rebuttal to the memo if it's released.

[Valsuelm]

[SonicMage117]

Schiff and Nunes... from Bromance to Bitter Rivals

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/01/adam-b-schiff-and-devin-nunes-from-bromance-to-bitter-adversaries/

 

Nancy Pelosi says: "We can't let the memo get out. It could endanger the country."

[Guard Dog]

The fact that a liberty-hating statist like Pelosi is so opposed to the release reinforces that it MUST be released.

[Bartimaeus]

"​The fact that a liberty-hating statist like Trump is so adamant to releasing it reinforces that it MUST not be released." ?

[Guard Dog]

"​The fact that a liberty-hating statist like Trump is so adamant to releasing it reinforces that it MUST not be released." ?

Actually Trumps opposition to releasing the one the Dems produced makes me think that one should be releaed too.

[Valsuelm]

The fact that a liberty-hating statist like Pelosi is so opposed to the release reinforces that it MUST be released.

 

We must release it to find out what is in it.

 

[Valsuelm]

"​The fact that a liberty-hating statist like Trump is so adamant to releasing it reinforces that it MUST not be released." ?

 

You're against government transparency and the public being fully informed?

[smjjames]

Bartimaeus was just poking at the logic I guess.

 

Anyways, looks like Trump is going to release it regardless.

 

 

 

"​The fact that a liberty-hating statist like Trump is so adamant to releasing it reinforces that it MUST not be released." ?

Actually Trumps opposition to releasing the one the Dems produced makes me think that one should be releaed too.

 

 

I agree, all three of them should be released, the original that the intel commitee approved, the one Nunes edited (the one Trump is actually releasing), and the Democratic rebuttal one. Transparency for all, right?

 

 

Today, he came out and said the opposite: that he would not resign, and he would in fact publicly contradict and provide a rebuttal to the memo if it's released.

 

Okay. Sounds like it was just people at the WH thinking to themselves whether he was going to then.

[Guard Dog]

There are three kinds of people in government: Moral busybodies, radical idealists, and power hungry narcissists. None of these three would be desirable to have unchecked power over their fellow humans. So it is absolutely in our own interest, indeed for our own very survival, that we vigilantly watch what the three flawed archetypes are up to with the power they have. They should never, ever be allowed to operate unsupervised. They should never, ever be trusted to do the right thing when eyes are not on them. If your government does not want you to see something regarding what it's been up to, then you really, really need to see it. 

[Bartimaeus]

​What smjjames said, on all three lines. If the GOP are going to craft some memo with the apparent intention of discrediting the FBI and the Mueller investigation through talking points (...and continue to edit it after its initial review by Congress), we should at least be able to see the rebuttal. Also as James said, we should also be able to see the original version that was approved by Congress (which we're apparently not going to get to, because Nunes continues to prove that he's just a political hack).

​

​@Guard Dog above: agreed.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[smjjames]

The reason why I said the origional is that even though Nunes claims that the edits are minor and inconsequential, it's still good to know what the edits are.

 

Also, word has been leaking from the WH that some think it may be a dud or just otherwise not up to the hype that's been generated. https://www.axios.com/release-memo-trump-fbi-mueller-wray-nunes-55bd411a-a313-416d-bf48-0e759789f478.html Also2, the Axios bit says that he wants to release with no redactions (things like FBI agent names and other stuff that could cause problems for the Intel community if released), but I've read elsewhere that they are doing some redactions.

 

editwhiletyping: And apparently a spokesperson for Paul Ryan said that he supports releasing the Democrat memo? Wonder what changed his mind.

[Pidesco]

There are three kinds of people in government: Moral busybodies, radical idealists, and power hungry narcissists. None of these three would be desirable to have unchecked power over their fellow humans. So it is absolutely in our own interest, indeed for our own very survival, that we vigilantly watch what the three flawed archetypes are up to with the power they have. They should never, ever be allowed to operate unsupervised. They should never, ever be trusted to do the right thing when eyes are not on them. If your government does not want you to see something regarding what it's been up to, then you really, really need to see it. 

 

Here's an idea: what if you elect a power hungry narcissist that has never held elected office to a mostly unsupervised position with a bunch of unchecked powers*? I hear that might just be the thing to reduce the amount of moistness in the freshwater forest. Because it seems quite clear to me that the problem with the previously elected, power hungry narcissists is the "previously elected" part not the "power hungry narcissist" part.

 

*If anyone mentions checks and balances I will probably present you with a picture of congress doing nothing.

[Bartimaeus]

Didn't Guard Dog vote libertarian this last election cycle? Can't put the blame on him for Trump - at least he tried to participate in our joke of an election system, unlike...uh...what, 100m+ potential voters?

​

​Also, we *do* have a pretty good set of checks and balances. They just don't amount for much when two of the three major branches are colluding with each other. I guess our founders didn't account for that possibility. Not that they should've had to (and indeed, trying to probably would've just created flaws elsewhere).

Edited February 2, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[smjjames]

Aaand Trump has authorized the release of the memo. There's apparently no WH based redactions, which is what Axios may have been talking about. It'll take a bit for the thing to actually be released, so, no link just yet.

[Pidesco]

Didn't Guard Dog vote libertarian this last election cycle? Can't put the blame on him for Trump - at least he tried to participate in our joke of an election system, unlike...uh...what, 100m+ potential voters?

​

​Also, we *do* have a pretty good set of checks and balances. They just don't amount for much when two of the three major branches are colluding with each other. I guess our founders didn't account for that possibility. Not that they should've had to (and indeed, trying to probably would've just created flaws elsewhere).

 

Guard Dog definitely didn't vote for Trump. I seem to recall him saying, however, that Trump might just be what the current corrupt system needs.

 

Regarding checks and balances that's exactly what I was getting at. They may pretty good, but they amount to pretty much nothing at this point.

[Bartimaeus]

Well, if he said that before Trump actually became president, I'd at least give the statement the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, he looked like an incredibly awful candidate by most every objective standard from the beginning, no doubt - but in his own way, he was kind of promising some of the same things Obama had ("change", as it were), and I think it's what a lot of more sensible folk were really hoping he'd actually live up to...and they were, of course, hoping that he wouldn't prove to be as awful and unstable of a person that he had seemed up to that point (...sadly, it's really only gotten worse since). I had several friends that tried to make me understand that's why they were voting for him, anyways, which I sort of accepted...but didn't agree with, as I had more pressing concerns at the time (especially knowing that it was very likely the GOP would have both the House and the Senate on top of it, which is exactly what ended up happening).

 

Right. ​Checks and balances never amount to anything when everyone's in on the scam with each other. If all our politicians suddenly united to call a Constitutional Convention to suspend elections and subsequently declare themselves absolute rulers of the land, the only option we'd have at that point is a violent revolution. Which we'd probably lose due to apathy.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[smjjames]

The memo is now out: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf May take a while to load since obviously traffic.

 

edit: The page seems to have crashed, but Axios has a loadout available: https://www.axios.com/read-nunes-memo-fbi-doj-fisa-mueller-7fb8bcb7-1f18-4294-aa95-628d2f67bcdf.html

Edited February 2, 2018 by smjjames

[Bartimaeus]

​...That's it? It's basically just a glorified complaint that Steele was biased against Trump, and it was his information (the infamous dossier) that provided a justification for the FISA surveillance against Carter Page? I mean...alright, sure. Yeah, Steele seems like a real dumb dumb, but it doesn't in any way invalidate all the others findings since then. ...Also, I'm reading elsewhere that Page had already had been being monitored since 2013 2014* for his involvement with some Russian spy ring? And if that's the case, then that blows a huge hole into the "the FBI only started monitoring him because of the Steele dossier" - at best, it would be the deciding factor as to why they continued to monitor him perhaps longer than they initially thought necessary. (e:) Also also, the memo specifically mentioned "information" in the Steele dossier being used to justify continued surveillance - not the dossier itself. That likely means information corroborated from elsewhere - very careful wording there, it seems. Trying to paint Comey as a liar after he said the dossier itself was "salacious and unverified" but then apparently used information that was in it to justify continued monitoring, when in reality, it's more likely he got corroborated info elsewhere that was used instead.

​

​And we have Paul Ryan out here calling for "cleanses" of the FBI. What a joke. If this is the nonsense used to end the Mueller investigation, I'm not so sure that we live under the rule of law anymore.

​

*​2014, way before the creation of the Steele dossier: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-trump-adviser-carter-page-under-fisa-warrant-since-2014-report/article/2630576

Edited February 2, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[smjjames]

I'd like to see the Democratic rebuttal and the original now.

[Malcador]

Maybe Nunes will get booted into irrelevance as a result

[Bartimaeus]

​Asked if Trump has faith in Rosenstein and/or plans to fire him, Trump replied, "You figure that out." Yeah. What a joke.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Guard Dog definitely didn't vote for Trump. I seem to recall him saying, however, that Trump might just be what the current corrupt system needs.

 

Regarding checks and balances that's exactly what I was getting at. They may pretty good, but they amount to pretty much nothing at this point.

 

Hahahahahah.... no I never said anything like that. The nicest thing I've ever said about his is at least he isn't Hillary Clinton. But then I said the same thing about her and him. And you're right, we've now had two power hungry narcissists in a row with little or now previous experience. I might hope for better on 2020 but past history is NOT encouraging.

 

And I have voted Libertarian exclusively in every race where there was one on the ballot since 2012. And will keep tilting at that windmill into the future. I did vote for McCain in '08, or more accurately, against Obama.

[ShadySands]

McCain had my vote until he chose Palin as his running mate. That's when things got too weird for me.

[Guard Dog]

McCain had my vote until he chose Palin as his running mate. That's when things got too weird for me.

Remember how everyone really liked Sarah Palin at first? Until she started.. you know... saying things.