Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:28 am
Just STFU Paul Ryan and go away already. You've done enough damage and it's too late to try and show people you might actually have a spine.
I mean, I agree, but it's still helpful that he said this. It's too late for him to make up for the damage he's done, but I'll take what I can get from him.
During a press conference on Republicans’ ongoing immigration debate, House Speaker Paul Ryan briefly mentioned the Trump-Russia probe, insisting that there is no evidence of collusion.
“In all of this, in any of this, there’s been no evidence that there’s any collusion between the Trump campaign and the President and Russia,” he said. “Let’s just make that clear — there is no collusion.
“This is Russia and what they did and making sure they don’t do it again and about us, Congress, the elected representative branch of government, conducting very legitimate oversight over the appointed executive branch of government, and we expect them to comply with all of our oversight requests because that is how good government works,” he added.
If there are any silver linings to this whole mess, one of the little ones is that Paul "Young Gun" Ryan's federal political career is going to end with him being one of the worst speakers in US history. He hasn't had an easy job I'll grant, with Drumpf on one side and the idiots in the Freedom Caucus on the other, but he still managed to run things into the ground with an authority that belies his youthful exterior.
A longtime US Senate staffer was arrested late Thursday on charges of lying to federal agents as part of an investigation related to the unauthorized disclosure of non-public information, according to a federal indictment.
Federal prosecutors accuse James Wolfe, the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee, of lying to FBI agents in December 2017 about his contacts with three reporters, including through his use of encrypted messaging applications. According to the indictment, Wolfe made false statements to the FBI about providing two reporters with non-public information related to the matters occurring before the committee.
The indictment provides a detailed account of Wolfe's interactions with one specific unnamed reporter. Prosecutors say Wolfe eventually admitted to being in a personal relationship with that reporter, dating back to 2014.
A longtime US Senate staffer was arrested late Thursday on charges of lying to federal agents as part of an investigation related to the unauthorized disclosure of non-public information, according to a federal indictment.
Federal prosecutors accuse James Wolfe, the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee, of lying to FBI agents in December 2017 about his contacts with three reporters, including through his use of encrypted messaging applications. According to the indictment, Wolfe made false statements to the FBI about providing two reporters with non-public information related to the matters occurring before the committee.
The indictment provides a detailed account of Wolfe's interactions with one specific unnamed reporter. Prosecutors say Wolfe eventually admitted to being in a personal relationship with that reporter, dating back to 2014.
"While the charges do not appear to include anything related to the mishandling of classified information, the Committee takes this matter extremely seriously. We were made aware of the investigation late last year, and have fully cooperated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice since then," they said.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
Mueller racks up more indictments today, this this time another for Paul Manafort and a new one for his partner in witness-tampering and obstruction, someone named Konstantin Kilimnik.
In what I'm sure is a complete and total coincidence, Kilimnik is thought to have ties to Russian intelligence.
As you recall, Power was caught using her security clearance as a U.N. ambassador to review private conversations by U.S. citizens. According to official records, she requested the unmasking of these private citizens over 260 times in 2016 (this was an election year). She was brought before the House Intelligence Committee to explain her actions.
Her defense? It wasn't me. Someone else in the Obama White House did this, using her security clearance.
There are two possibilities: that she is telling the truth, in which case someone else in the Obama administration is lying. Or she is lying herself.
Let's consider the implications if she's lying. Power, a supposed human rights activist and darling of the left, came into her office every day – Monday through Friday, 52 weeks a year – and did some reading. But instead of the New York Times, or her favorite blog, she was reading the transcripts of private conversations of her fellow Americans, wiretapped by federal agents. And not only that, but she made a request each day on average to unmask a U.S. citizen in those transcripts.
Why are our supposed human rights activists not horrified? Why is this not a daily banner headline in every major newspaper in the country? I could see the MSM attempting to hide this damning evidence of Obama administration malfeasance, but why are the conservative news outlets not clamoring for answers?
Thanks for the drive-by editorial from "The American Thinker" (where we can also find editorials about the godlessness of science, defenses of Rosseanne Barr, and warnings of "demographic disaster").
Gowdy and Nunes subpoenaed and interrogated Samantha Power before committee, yet somehow they've never made this the huge case your opinion writer wants it to be. Questions were asked, investigation was made, and it fizzled.
If only these Republicans had the power to control and maintain investigations. Hold on... ARE GOWDY AND NUNES DEEP STATE??!?
The names of Americans picked up in surveillance are typically redacted from intelligence reports provided to government officials. Certain high-level officials have the authority to request that the names be unredacted in order to better understand the intelligence reports.
Power told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in an interview in October that others in government made the unmasking requests under her name.
Asked about Power’s explanation by Hewitt, Clapper suggested that it is cause for concern.
“If that happened, if people usurped the authority to request unmaskings, would that concern you, Director Clapper?” Hewitt asked.
“Yeah, it would,” said Clapper.
“I don’t know quite how that would happen, you know, because the only way you can make an unmasking request is that you have authorized access to the report in question in the first place.”
“So I don’t know how that, quite how that would work,” he added.
Rip wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:52 am
Why are our supposed human rights activists not horrified? Why is this not a daily banner headline in every major newspaper in the country? I could see the MSM attempting to hide this damning evidence of Obama administration malfeasance, but why are the conservative news outlets not clamoring for answers?
[/quote]
Why ARE conservative news outlets not clamoring for answers? Why is it only the big brains on American Thinker and Rip that think this bigly?
Rip wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:36 am
I doubt the issue is dead yet.
If she lied or did something wrong, she should be punished for it. If it's a major wrong, the punishment should very serious. I don't care what administration she was in or what party she supports.
Rip wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:36 am
I doubt the issue is dead yet.
If she lied or did something wrong, she should be punished for it. If it's a major wrong, the punishment should very serious. I don't care what administration she was in or what party she supports.
Whenever Rip gets a few hours off, we stop discussing world events and start discussing Rip. It certainly makes catching up on R&P easy, as I can just scroll until there is no more Jackson.
It's almost like there is a vast right wing conspiracy to get all the wingnuts aligned.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:59 am
Whenever Rip gets a few hours off, we stop discussing world events and start discussing Rip. It certainly makes catching up on R&P easy, as I can just scroll until there is no more Jackson.
Skinypupy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:04 pm
I don’t much care what Rip thinks, but his positions typically mirror most of the conservative folks I know.
Honing arguments and discussion points here make real life discussions easier in my world. YMMV.
I'm the other way around. My back and forth with Rip ends up being a proxy for my frustrations, so I can continue to remain as polite as possible when either butting in or being pulled in. I don't like how cynical I get here, even in writing but it is cathartic.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:59 am
Whenever Rip gets a few hours off, we stop discussing world events and start discussing Rip. It certainly makes catching up on R&P easy, as I can just scroll until there is no more Jackson.
Indeed. He's most active in the Trump Presidency thread, so I tend to just leave that thread as a fallout wasteland (at least, when Rip is not dormant), and focus on the other R&P threads.
hepcat wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:21 am
He’s a fascinating...and often depressing...look into the mind of a Trump supporter. political troll. I find worth in that at times.
hepcat wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:21 am
He’s a fascinating...and often depressing...look into the mind of a Trump supporter. political troll. I find worth in that at times.
Needless to say, I do not.
After a decade plus, a decade plus that has given us Drumpf as the outcome, I too am no longer interested. There are other cesspools on the internet if that interested me. This is my home. I don't like when people shit on it and then admit they did it on purpose to piss me off.
If it was a discussion over difference of opinions where the end result is getting a better functioning government then it would be worthwhile. Instead the motive is simply to irritate people while flicking his nipples.
Understanding that there is no productive result is a big part of what changed for me.
I can waste time all day talking about games I love, if I just want to fill time (and sometimes that's all I want to do).
When refuting the other side's points instead of considering them is all that matters, well, it might as well be a schoolyard insult fight (of which I'm actually quite skilled at , which is ANOTHER reason I hate Drumpf. Every time he opens his mouth to insult someone I would DESTROY HIM in seconds, yet this is one of his skills that resulted in him becoming president? Are you kiddn' me? He's the Guybrush Threepwood of insults).
Considering about half of my co-workers and nearly all of my family members are Trump supporters, I participate in this thread primarily to be reassured there are pockets of sanity still left in this world.
I'm fine with people differing with me on matters of policy. I'm not fine with people who ignore facts, willfully remain uninformed, or just parrot what they see on right-wing propaganda sources. Most Trump supporters I know are guilty of all three.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:34 pm
Considering about half of my co-workers and nearly all of my family members are Trump supporters, I participate in this thread primarily to be reassured there are pockets of sanity still left in this world.
I'm fine with people differing with me on matters of policy. I'm not fine with people who ignore facts, willfully remain uninformed, or just parrot what they see on right-wing propaganda sources. Most Trump supporters I know are guilty of all three.
Dude. We converted you.
I have almost zero exposure to Trumpsters except on facebook and in the comments sections of every political or popular science article everywhere. When he's not openly trolling, Rip presents a point of view that I otherwise see only as misspelled slogans and ungrammatical tirades against Obama and absurd unrealities -- I see bots and knuckle-draggers who make me wonder how their tribe even manages to get dressed every morning, let alone gain control of governments. I guess the bots have the advantage of not needing to dress. I won't say Rip's an antidote to that, but he does state a perspective that I don't see in proper English anywhere else, and I think I've been reading him long enough to tell when it's worth responding, and when to just let it pass.
What I'd really like to understand is the other side's contempt for Obama. Why do they think his presidency was such a disaster? I'd like to hear that from one of them. But not in this thread.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:34 pm
Considering about half of my co-workers and nearly all of my family members are Trump supporters, I participate in this thread primarily to be reassured there are pockets of sanity still left in this world.
I'm fine with people differing with me on matters of policy. I'm not fine with people who ignore facts, willfully remain uninformed, or just parrot what they see on right-wing propaganda sources. Most Trump supporters I know are guilty of all three.
Dude. We converted you.
I have almost zero exposure to Trumpsters except on facebook and in the comments sections of every political or popular science article everywhere. When he's not openly trolling, Rip presents a point of view that I otherwise see only as misspelled slogans and ungrammatical tirades against Obama and absurd unrealities -- I see bots and knuckle-draggers who make me wonder how their tribe even manages to get dressed every morning, let alone gain control of governments. I guess the bots have the advantage of not needing to dress. I won't say Rip's an antidote to that, but he does state a perspective that I don't see in proper English anywhere else, and I think I've been reading him long enough to tell when it's worth responding, and when to just let it pass.
What I'd really like to understand is the other side's contempt for Obama. Why do they think his presidency was such a disaster? I'd like to hear that from one of them. But not in this thread.
I certainly don't have contempt for him. In fact he was much better than I expected. I don't care for many things he did but for the most part I think he had the best of intentions. Again I would point to Robert Gates' book Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War as I think his views match very well with mine. Noting he speaks mostly to foreign policy and very little to domestic policy.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:34 pm
Considering about half of my co-workers and nearly all of my family members are Trump supporters, I participate in this thread primarily to be reassured there are pockets of sanity still left in this world.
I'm fine with people differing with me on matters of policy. I'm not fine with people who ignore facts, willfully remain uninformed, or just parrot what they see on right-wing propaganda sources. Most Trump supporters I know are guilty of all three.
Dude. We converted you.
I have almost zero exposure to Trumpsters except on facebook and in the comments sections of every political or popular science article everywhere. When he's not openly trolling, Rip presents a point of view that I otherwise see only as misspelled slogans and ungrammatical tirades against Obama and absurd unrealities -- I see bots and knuckle-draggers who make me wonder how their tribe even manages to get dressed every morning, let alone gain control of governments. I guess the bots have the advantage of not needing to dress. I won't say Rip's an antidote to that, but he does state a perspective that I don't see in proper English anywhere else, and I think I've been reading him long enough to tell when it's worth responding, and when to just let it pass.
What I'd really like to understand is the other side's contempt for Obama. Why do they think his presidency was such a disaster? I'd like to hear that from one of them. But not in this thread.
I certainly don't have contempt for him. In fact he was much better than I expected. I don't care for many things he did but for the most part I think he had the best of intentions. Again I would point to Robert Gates' book Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War as I think his views match very well with mine. Noting he speaks mostly to foreign policy and very little to domestic policy.
I think it's widely agreed that foreign policy was Obama's weak suit. The Iran and Paris treaties were the high points, and the right hates both of those. Domestically, he was better than average by most objective measurements. But again: I don't want to derail this thread for that. Let's get back to locking up Trump's cronies.
I came to a realization yesterday morning that I don't particularly like. When I hear the statements that come out of this White House, I more times than not, think "Are the people who still support this president idiots to not see the scam?" My better nature wants to not believe that, as I have many co-workers and family members who are Trump supporters, and I want to believe that they are rational human beings who make their decisions from more data than "stigginit" and "my party's guy". My realization yesterday was that I'm an optimistic fool. If we don't fix this, we are screwed for some indeterminate amount of time. Even if we do fix this, we are probably screwed for some indeterminate amount of time. For the RIPs out there, by screwed, I mean - damage to our relationship with our allies, damage to our competitive position in the renewable energy sector vs. China, damage to our environment, damage to our diplomatic corps, damage to government sponsored science, damage in our confidence as Americans that our government works at all, damage to the middle class, damage to the lower class, and . . .well, I give up.
Welcome to the new reality. Electing Trump itself was very, very bad for the world order. It was a shot across the bow that all the warnings over the years were finally manifesting.
That we've gone as far down this road and the rest of our government has basically sat on its hands while he burns all our norms away is why the future for us is so bleak. We've shown that our system has severe weaknesses and our politics are truly broken.
We will not be allowed to lead without serious reform. It would be folly for our allies to commit to anything we lead if in 4 years we can just tack hard against that agreement. We are unstable policy wise. Until people really get their heads around that concept they will not understand how the world is going to work in the 21st century.
As partisanship grew and grew people jokingly talked about a "new Civil War" to illustrate how bad things had gotten.
However, as we've found out, the real destruction of America will not require Americans to take sides against each other. It will just be a matter of "a house divided against itself cannot stand." We're seeing the fruits of a civil war without a shot being fired, actively encouraged and manipulated by Russia.
As an American, it really sucks. As an outside observer, it was some genius-level warfare.
It culminated in the election of a President who quite literally only considers himself the leader of those who voted for him, and the rest of us can go to hell. That's terrifying, and it should be terrifying to anyone who supports him. Even though I didn't vote for Obama the first time around, or Clinton, I fully expected them to lead ALL Americans.
Americans' complacency will be the end of this country and it pisses me off.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:45 am
Welcome to the new reality. Electing Trump itself was very, very bad for the world order. It was a shot across the bow that all the warnings over the years were finally manifesting.
That we've gone as far down this road and the rest of our government has basically sat on its hands while he burns all our norms away is why the future for us is so bleak. We've shown that our system has severe weaknesses and our politics are truly broken.
We will not be allowed to lead without serious reform. It would be folly for our allies to commit to anything we lead if in 4 years we can just tack hard against that agreement. We are unstable policy wise. Until people really get their heads around that concept they will not understand how the world is going to work in the 21st century.
There is a degree to which we are screwed long-term because we are stuck with an archaic political / constitutional structure that doesn't function well in a modern political environment. On foreign policy / agreements, the Constitution requires a 2/3rds supermajority Senate vote to affirm a treaty. That's a comically high bar, especially when combined with the unrepresentative Senate structure. You just need a portion of the political opposition, which has every political incentive to defeat the President's objectives regardless of how controversial they are, and which may reflect as little as 15% - 20% of the voting population, to sink any treaty. We can't even confirm a popular bipartisan disability treaty that we are basically already complying with.
So, a lot of treaties (such as Paris and the Iran deal) wind up getting stylized as 'agreements' to accommodate the inability of the United States to confirm actual treaties. But then, because they're not treaties, they're subject to the unilateral whims of future Presidents.
So even setting Trump aside, we're now basically in a position where we as a country are essentially unable to make binding promises that other countries can rely on, even in areas of widespread international and domestic support.
Formix wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:03 am
we are screwed for some indeterminate amount of time.
I gave up on this not being the case probably around April of 2017. I had hope until around then. Now my hope is Mueller finishes his investigation. Oddly enough while I hope this all reeled in, I hope Trump is not impeached. A lot of people are bitchslapped after he leaves office so he can't pardon them, we elect a sane congress and presidency in 2018 and 2020 and we have stain and shame to deal with for the rest of my life with the knowledge of how close to the brink we are truly and what that means for a stability I have known my entire life until this past decade. We deal with the raid on the coffers for decades to come and we never really recover from being an ally who is two steps away from collapsing its relationship to its allies and a little over one step away from being an enemy of humanitarian causes.
Of course, even if Trump continues to stand by Pruitt, the ongoing scandal that is Scott Pruitt raises the risk of the move, because putting an obviously corrupt person in as AG without confirmation would be yet another glaring signal (even to low information voters) that something was seriously wrong.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:45 am
Welcome to the new reality. Electing Trump itself was very, very bad for the world order. It was a shot across the bow that all the warnings over the years were finally manifesting.
That we've gone as far down this road and the rest of our government has basically sat on its hands while he burns all our norms away is why the future for us is so bleak. We've shown that our system has severe weaknesses and our politics are truly broken.
We will not be allowed to lead without serious reform. It would be folly for our allies to commit to anything we lead if in 4 years we can just tack hard against that agreement. We are unstable policy wise. Until people really get their heads around that concept they will not understand how the world is going to work in the 21st century.
There is a degree to which we are screwed long-term because we are stuck with an archaic political / constitutional structure that doesn't function well in a modern political environment. On foreign policy / agreements, the Constitution requires a 2/3rds supermajority Senate vote to affirm a treaty. That's a comically high bar, especially when combined with the unrepresentative Senate structure. You just need a portion of the political opposition, which has every political incentive to defeat the President's objectives regardless of how controversial they are, and which may reflect as little as 15% - 20% of the voting population, to sink any treaty. We can't even confirm a popular bipartisan disability treaty that we are basically already complying with.
So, a lot of treaties (such as Paris and the Iran deal) wind up getting stylized as 'agreements' to accommodate the inability of the United States to confirm actual treaties. But then, because they're not treaties, they're subject to the unilateral whims of future Presidents.
So even setting Trump aside, we're now basically in a position where we as a country are essentially unable to make binding promises that other countries can rely on, even in areas of widespread international and domestic support.
Yet there is a nice long list of treaties that have been ratified by congress.
I would suggest being careful what you wish for because treaties that can be done by a simple majority could work out about as well as others actions that have been changed to simple majority. I can just imagine Treaties that come and go routinely as administrations change. A treaty should be something that has longevity across administrations of different parties.
Half of the "treaties" this century were not ratified. The point is we can't negotiate non-binding agreements with our partners and then elect unqualified maniacs. It won't work.
, which is ANOTHER reason I hate Drumpf. Every time he opens his mouth to insult someone I would DESTROY HIM in seconds, yet this is one of his skills that resulted in him becoming president? Are you kiddn' me? He's the Guybrush Threepwood of insults).
