The Political Quinceañera Thread

[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.

[Malcador]

 

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.

 

 

As always "si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" applies

[Hurlshort]

 

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.

 

 

I'm not even sure about there being a period of like. She was not even well regarded by the few Alaskans I knew. But yeah, that was a bummer because I was a fan of McCain.

[Pidesco]

McCain was also always terrible, he just had a good political image, mavericking his way into always voting against his principles.

[HoonDing]

he's been dining off his war hero status his entire life, i prefer ppl who don't get captured

[Gromnir]

 

 

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.

 

 

I'm not even sure about there being a period of like. She was not even well regarded by the few Alaskans I knew. But yeah, that was a bummer because I was a fan of McCain.

 

most important quality for Gromnir, when voting for president, is character.  am knowing such might not be the most important quality for a president, but it remains paramount to us.  were too young to vote carter v. ford, but am suspecting such woulda' been the most difficult election choice in our lifetime. woulda' had us facing a genuine crisis when deciding.  ford and carter were both solid human beings with unimpeachable character. mccain and obama weren't quite same situation as carter v. ford, but we were nevertheless confident both men were honest concerned with the wellbeing o' the American People. as much as we disliked obama's presidency, we wouldn't have felt dirty if we had voted for him in 2008.

 

as to the nunes memo, is 'course most significant for what it does not include.  nunes memo doesn't actual claim the steele dossier were the only evidence utilized for granting o' the initial warrant.  if steele dossier is the only evidence, we would indeed have concerns, but can't tell from the memo.  to not point out that the steele dossier were singular in granting the warrant seems like more than a simple oversight on the part o' the republicans who crafted the talking points memo.  am suspecting the steele dossier were only one piece o' evidence utilized in granting the page warrant, but is impossible to tell from the memo, which strikes us as intentional rather than accidental.

 

furthermore, even if the memo were granted based 'pon steele dossier, the talking points memo fails to address how the warrant were kept active. such warrants is anything but interminable.   unless the warrant were producing credible evidence w/i a short period o' time, it would have died. would very much like a nunes explanation 'bout how such a fraudulent and skewed basis for the page warrant seeming resulted in enough credible intelligence to maintain the warrant.

 

and yeah, the timing o' the partisan memo, released just ahead o' mueller attempts to interview trump, should be viewed as a bit suspicious.  mueller is largely unimpeachable, so trump and his allies is resorting to deep-state silliness to undermine the investigation?  regardless, am having no way to formulate any kinda meaningful opinion 'til we get a few important questions answered, especial those questions regarding basis for warrant beyond the steele dossier, and what were basis for maintaining the warrant. seems like essential questions needing answers.

 

unlike others, the memo doesn't bother us much as am always the guy cautioning patience in such situations.  don't rush to judgement.  wait for more info before deciding right or wrong, win or lose.  seeming black and white is likely to get muddied and grey 'fore we get any kinda real clarity, but there is a tendency, particular in the polarized world o' 2018, for people to make snap decisions and then defend 'em through fire and storm, regardless o' new info. wait for the dems response, and then wait a bit more. won't hurt to delay any kinda personal judgments for a week or so, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VGwfkTW4WU

[Gromnir]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-02/what-the-gop-probe-memo-claims-and-how-that-squares-with-reality

 

worth a look.  a couple noteworthy aspects as is kinda direct responses to Gromnir concerns.

 

"The FISA warrant concerning Page remains classified, but warrant applications are lengthy documents that often run 60 to 80 pages where officials need to show “probable cause” that the target is a foreign power or an agent of one. Obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on a U.S. citizen requires multiple levels of review that on average involves 10 government officials, according to a former U.S. national security official. Democrats on the House Intelligence panel issued a statement Friday saying “the investigation would persist on the basis of wholly independent evidence had Christopher Steele never entered the picture.”"

 

"Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Friday that the Republicans “cherry-picked” information from McCabe’s testimony, leaving out what he said about the “genesis of the investigation that did not involve the dossier.” Page -- who denies wrongdoing and said he welcomes release of the memo -- was on the FBI’s radar long before the dossier: In 2013, Russian spies tried to recruit him, according to an FBI criminal complaint filed in 2015."

 

"Democrats on House Intelligence said the GOP description of the warrant application contains “serious mischaracterizations” that are laid out in a still-classified Democratic memo. For one thing, the Page warrant was renewed three times, steps that the former U.S. official said would have required the Justice Department to show the FISA court that useful intelligence had been obtained and an extension was needed."

 

edit: please note, Gromnir is not suggesting the memo is garbage 'cause o' linked bloomberg fact-check article.  am clear not convinced by a largely hypothetical democrat rebuttal any more than by the republican release.  however, is reassuring to us that the dems and media sources is seeing the same issues as does Gromnir.  frequent we observe media and politicians arguing over trivialities or tangential aspects.  simple get folks to talk 'bout the relevant issues is often the biggest challenge.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 3, 2018 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

Trump's memo is hardly convincing. If they want to go after the FBI or the investigation they'd be far better off catching them leaking, which they've done extensively and for obvious political purposes. Bit difficult to do when the people who should be catching the leakers are the ones leaking though. Just another sign that the whole US intelligence apparatus is a law to itself and uncontrollable though.

 

Speaking of which, using a warrant from that abject rubber stamp FISA court as evidence of anything is a joke, and is either a sign of ignorance or deliberate obfuscation from Bloomberg. It rejects one warrant application every four years on average, or one out of every 4500 cases if you prefer. That's out and out kangaroo court territory- you're more likely to have the 'prosecution case' rejected in North Korea than in FISA.

[Valsuelm]

Trump's memo is hardly convincing. If they want to go after the FBI or the investigation they'd be far better off catching them leaking, which they've done extensively and for obvious political purposes. Bit difficult to do when the people who should be catching the leakers are the ones leaking though. Just another sign that the whole US intelligence apparatus is a law to itself and uncontrollable though.

 

Speaking of which, using a warrant from that abject rubber stamp FISA court as evidence of anything is a joke, and is either a sign of ignorance or deliberate obfuscation from Bloomberg. It rejects one warrant application every four years on average, or one out of every 4500 cases if you prefer. That's out and out kangaroo court territory- you're more likely to have the 'prosecution case' rejected in North Korea than in FISA.

 

If you were not convinced prior to the memo leaking that the investigation into Trump colluding with the evil Russians, or the evil Russians hacked our election, or whatever you want to call it is 100% pure BS (on a cartoonishly epic scale), then the memo wasn't like to convince you.

 

Likewise, if you had much faith that the FBI was trustworthy, honest, law abiding, honorable organization, then the memo is like to not convince you otherwise.

 

What did you expect the memo to do? What were you looking for a memo to convince you of? Or think others were looking for?

Edited February 3, 2018 by Valsuelm

[Zoraptor]

I wasn't expecting it to do anything much, and that's exactly what it delivered. The way both sides were talking about it it would have been easy to expect it to have some actual substance though.

[Bartimaeus]

It didn't help that the two things that seemed interesting - Comey calling the Steele dossier unverified but then apparently using it to justify FISA surveillance (bad), and Steele's apparent extreme bias against Trump (especially bad when combined with the previous point) - turned out to be a lie in the former case, and a half-truth at best in the latter.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[Zoraptor]

Comey calling the Steele dossier unverified but then apparently using it to justify FISA surveillance 

 

We don't really know what happened with respect to that, nor will we, given the nature of the FISA court. Is it even possible to independently check at what time/ date a FISA warrant is issued and for what reason, or do we have to take interested parties such as the FBI/ NSA's word for it? Rhetorical question, that. There certainly seems to have been leaks made based on the surveillance which is a direct intervention by someone in the FBI/ NSA, even if was not by the NSA or FBI as organisations. So far as I am concerned as vaguely neutral that is where the strongest point of attack for Trump lies- and manipulation by the intelligence community is far more of a risk to US democracy than anything the Russians can do. Everyone who isn't a nationalism induced moron knows that the US tries to influence Russian politics and the Russians try and influence US politics; the problems are always worse when you have the state's own security apparatus deciding to interfere politically.

 

Plus in a more general case, if it were collaboration with the Saudis or Israel that were regarded as being worthy of surveillance the only candidate in 30 years likely to avoid monitoring would be- maybe- Obama.

 

Steele's apparent extreme bias against Trump (especially bad when combined with the previous point) - turned out to be a lie in the former case, and a half-truth at best in the latter.

 

 

Steele was picked by the Democrats in the first place because he was biased. if someone wrote a piece on Hillary or Bernie paid for by the Republican Party it would clearly be biased since, well, neither R nor D are interested in an unbiased scientific type analysis but in generating maximum political capital. They will deliberately employ people who will give them what they want, not a disinterested academic. Steele's dossier is replete with gossip, doubly removed hearsay and is almost entirely unverifiable even when it drifts towards direct information- and is also at multiple points self contradictory (eg, Russians cultivating Trump for 5 years, offering him deals etc and Trump turned them down; yet later in dossier (p8) saying Trump's lack of property in Russia was "not for lack of trying"). That's what they wanted and what they paid for. That stuff is also very easy to 'soft' corroborate either by using the same source speaking to a different person/ organisation or a different person reporting the same rumour.