Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: RonCOf all the people criticizing President Trump, Senator McCain is about the last one worth quoting at this point. He has pretty much had something negative to say about the President at just about every turn. He is entitled to that; it just doesn't move the ball much when he says things that are pretty much expected.
If Senator McCain, who is in a horrible battle for his life, really cared about the people he represents, he would resign and let the Governor appoint someone to do the job of Senator that he can no longer completely perform. He would still be able to issue his statements of opposition to the President and Arizona would have two working Senators.
I'll disagree here. First of all, you used an oxymoron, "working Senator". If he is of sound enough mind to make those statements, and can show up if a vote is needed, then he need not resign. I don't like McCain on many issues, but at least he is his own man. He strongly came out in favor of Kavanaugh, He comes out against a plethora of Trump ideas. He is NOT just "Trump said it so it is bad". But he doesn't just tow the party line. It is too bad the Democrats do not have a "McCain". If they did, he/she would be in position to easily beat Trump in 2020.
Quote: SOOPOOIt is too bad the Democrats do not have a "McCain".
His name is Bernie.
Quote: BozDude,
Let’s have a beer on me Sunday. Or on you, lol.
People are people.
Would be good to meet you and understand we aren’t that much different.
Oh, I'm sure I'd get along with most Trump supporters on here in real life. Believe it or not, in reality I'm not a walking anti-Trump avatar.
Quote: ams288His name is Bernie.
Not even close. Bernie is against everything Republican. He will be against everything Trump. He will be against all SCJ nominees. Bernie will NEVER cross the aisle like McCain would.
I think you mean Bernie does not always 'tow the party line' and in that way he is like McCain, but McCain tows it toward the center, Bernie tows it towards the fringes.
Quote: SOOPOOI'll disagree here. First of all, you used an oxymoron, "working Senator". If he is of sound enough mind to make those statements, and can show up if a vote is needed, then he need not resign. I don't like McCain on many issues, but at least he is his own man. He strongly came out in favor of Kavanaugh, He comes out against a plethora of Trump ideas. He is NOT just "Trump said it so it is bad". But he doesn't just tow the party line. It is too bad the Democrats do not have a "McCain". If they did, he/she would be in position to easily beat Trump in 2020.
First, he has always missed a lot of votes...
"From Jan 1987 to Jul 2018, McCain missed 1,182 of 10,345 roll call votes, which is 11.4%. This is much worse than the median of 1.5% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving. The chart below reports missed votes over time."
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/john_mccain/300071
It appears he has not voted on any key legislation since December 2017, which is in keeping with his worsening diagnosis (from what we know publicly).
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53270/john-mccain-iii#.W03b_tJKiUl
Just being wheeled in to vote for a Supreme Court Justice, if that even is possible for him at this point, is not enough. I agree with you that the people on the Hill don't appear to work hard for us (they do work hard to stay in office; that is different) but presence is important. He is not hearing testimony, not meeting face-to-face with his colleagues on the Hill, and doing the other things important to a deliberative body.
Don't get me wrong--I don't like him, but my point is that he is not fully representing his state. That is what he was elected to do. I don't get people running for office and then making themselves absent from their office for two years while running for a higher office, either. I would like to see them resign and be replaced--they can always run "next time" if they lose the election. Perhaps it has lost the ability to do so, but deliberative bodies need to deliberate.
McCain is allowed to say whatever he wants, of course, I just don't think his voice adds much to the narrative of what happened yesterday because it isn't like he is on President Trump's side very much, anyway. Others, who often support the President, are more of an indicator of how far the panning of the President's performance goes than McCain's.
Quote: ams288His name is Bernie.
Bernie is a Socialist. Socialists seem to be grabbing a larger piece of the Democrat Party pie. I am not sure Socialists will ever be widely embraced.
I think that spells trouble ahead for the party, but who knows?
Quote: SOOPOOI think you mean Bernie does not always 'tow the party line' and in that way he is like McCain, but McCain tows it toward the center, Bernie tows it towards the fringes.
Yes, that is what I meant.
Quote: SOOPOOIt is funny, what you wrote and attribute to Trump, I see as DEFINING the Democrat party! Just add the phrase "and we want the government to give it all to me because the rich can pay more".....
Triggered about his taxes
Awww...
Quote: darkozTriggered about his taxes
Awww...
At least he pays taxes.
Quote: darkozTriggered about his taxes
Awww...
I'm not sure if you meant that jab at me or at Trump. If it is at me, it has zero sting. I am happy to pay my disproportionally high share of taxes, as the system I am paying into has allowed me to succeed. I understand the public school system got me started on the right track. I used public libraries a lot when I was growing up. I appreciate the public services I could not do without (police, fire, army). I like that there are museums, parks, playgrounds for all to enjoy.
Hey, dark, how about you giving me a 'thank you' for helping you enjoy all the same great things America provides its public?
"LUCY NICHOLSON / REUTERS
The nation’s top voting-machine maker has admitted installing remote-access software on election-management systems that it sold over a period of six years, in what one U.S. senator described as “the worst decision for security short of leaving ballot boxes on a Moscow street corner.”"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/voting-machine-vendor-put-remote-access-software-on-systems-sold-to-us
Some systems just should not be accessed remotely...ever....even if maintenance costs more.
Quote: ams288His name is Bernie.
People haven't grasped it yet, but a large part of the Russian manipulation started about 2 weeks before Nov. 8.
The Russians intercepted the DNC analytics about 6 weeks before that. This included demographics on individuals and tendencies by groups. They were cued by a strange press release at that time to filter those analytics for 3 groups. White strong liberals, young women, and blacks, who were wavering or persuadable.
The DNC spends a huge amount of time and effort collecting that data. I made several thousand phone calls myself in 2012 and worked extensively with that database, entering answers from that script and general impressions from each conversation. (I can see how it was vulnerable in 2016: there were several thousand people building it every day, and hundreds of analysts accessing and evaluating it constantly.)
Each of those groups was targeted for voter suppression through discouragement as appropriate. Thousands of bots and hundreds of Russian trolls spread false and slanted information and fake news on all social media platforms those individuals subscribed to, making different claims to each group. The recipients also were sorted and targeted by individual traits and state of residence.
They used Bernie Sanders as a primary wedge issue (one of several) in doing this, from the BLM issue he had with them earlier, to his disagreements with Hillary, to him "not really" supporting her or his issues "being important" to her.
So Bernie people stayed home. Blacks stayed home. People who thought their vote didn't matter anyway stayed home. They took their cues from their "friends" and reports they saw on social media. Stuff that was targeted lies.
Regardless of who you voted for, you should be OUTRAGED that we were manipulated like this, and the other ways they messed with us. You really should.
Quote: billryanSeems like the opioid crisis has hit the forum.
On the bright side, it couldn't happen to a more deserving pos.
Who's the pos?
1) I didn't like either candidate for President. I had not embraced Trump, and Hillary I had disliked for the better part of a quarter century. I actually was a Scott Walker guy. I have since grown to like Trump and will definitely vote for him in 2020.
2) I didn't feel by abstaining I was gonna sway anything. I live in Cook County Illinois. In Presidential years in Illinois, there is no governor's race, which on occasion go to Republicans. Furthermore, the vast majority of local races are Democrats running unopposed. Those who do happen to run with a Republican opposition still tend to win with an excess of 70 percent of the vote.
3) There wasn't any Referendum or any issue on the ballot I particularly cared about.
The second issue I take issue with is that the black vote was suppressed in 2016. I actually think more blacks than normal turned out in both 2012 and 2008. I think this created a false narrative that the increased turnout that came to vote for Obama was caked in. African AMericans are about 11-12 percent of the American population but the vote in those two elections was around 13 percent. Someone such as you, who knows how to view numbers in their proper light, would know that to be a 8 to 18 percent increase of the norm. I think the 2016 election was more of a regression to the mean, rather than a suppression. These numbers also back up my assertion that more people in 2008 and 2012 voted for Obama because he was black than voted against him for that same reason.
Trump picked off a lot of people who happened to vote for Obama, some of them even voted for him twice. There were people who voted for him, hoping that the American people electing a black President would end the line that America is a racist country.
Quote: MaxPenWho's the pos?
I would also like the answer to this.
Quote: Gabes22BBB, there are only a couple of issues I truly see with your post...
My turn. And just one.
They targeted social media. If that's how you get your important info, then whatever ills you receive are earned.
Quote: FaceMy turn. And just one.
They targeted social media. If that's how you get your important info, then whatever ills you receive are earned.
You're not wrong. In either direction, if there are only 2. I would guess that's where most people get their info these days, and they have self-selected their own bubble over time.
I have to work not to eliminate "friends" who proliferate garbage myself. And I've been told by a few IRL that they unfriended me because of politics. (And I post very infrequently, the issue is my other friends' comments on my feed.)
So, it's working. We're being moved bit by bit into our non-intersecting worlds.
"A house divided cannot stand unto itself."
Some people see that as a feature, not a flaw. We're incredibly vulnerable right now.
Quote: Gabes22BBB, there are only a couple of issues I truly see with your post is they started manipulation 2 weeks before the election. At that point in excess of 99 percent of the people had made up their mind. Personally, I didn't vote in 2016, but that was due to a few factors.
1) I didn't like either candidate for President. I had not embraced Trump, and Hillary I had disliked for the better part of a quarter century. I actually was a Scott Walker guy. I have since grown to like Trump and will definitely vote for him in 2020.
2) I didn't feel by abstaining I was gonna sway anything. I live in Cook County Illinois. In Presidential years in Illinois, there is no governor's race, which on occasion go to Republicans. Furthermore, the vast majority of local races are Democrats running unopposed. Those who do happen to run with a Republican opposition still tend to win with an excess of 70 percent of the vote.
3) There wasn't any Referendum or any issue on the ballot I particularly cared about.
The second issue I take issue with is that the black vote was suppressed in 2016. I actually think more blacks than normal turned out in both 2012 and 2008. I think this created a false narrative that the increased turnout that came to vote for Obama was caked in. African AMericans are about 11-12 percent of the American population but the vote in those two elections was around 13 percent. Someone such as you, who knows how to view numbers in their proper light, would know that to be a 8 to 18 percent increase of the norm. I think the 2016 election was more of a regression to the mean, rather than a suppression. These numbers also back up my assertion that more people in 2008 and 2012 voted for Obama because he was black than voted against him for that same reason.
Trump picked off a lot of people who happened to vote for Obama, some of them even voted for him twice. There were people who voted for him, hoping that the American people electing a black President would end the line that America is a racist country.
Agree it started long before 2 weeks. This was in reference to a specific hostile act that was unrolled during the last few days. It was one of many, apparently. But I did not know before last night that there was a specific effort to disenfranchise Democrat/Hillary voters, staged and staffed by Russians. So I thought I would bring it into the conversation.
Gabes, tbh, there is no excuse or combination of reasons that make it OK not to vote. People have died for that right, not to mention millions of lesser hardships . Even if your vote cancels out mine, I would want your voice to be heard. Apathy is our enemy.
Quote: TankoAnyone who has Amazon Prime can see Dinesh D’Souzas’s “Hillary’s America” free of charge. Very surprised Amazon picked it up. Very. It’s more about the history of the democrat party and civil rights history, than Hillary.
Does the convicted felon's film utter the phrase "Southern Strategy"?
Rhetorical of course.
Quote: beachbumbabsI would also like the answer to this.
At a key moment yesterday, a typographic error occupied. An apostrophe was misplaced and a letter omitted. Evidently even Seriously Stable Geniuses need to proof read.
Meddling is a time-honored tradition. Combating it is also traditional. For some reason, both the former and current President downplayed it to a degree that I am uncomfortable with at this point. but the former President has a little cover there--he could have been doing it to press for success on other fronts where we had dealings with the Russians.
I think President Trump conflates the meddling with the investigation when they can easily be two different things. So far, no evidence of "collusion" but there is lots of evidence of meddling.
I do question why all of the servers and other devices were not examined in detail for the purpose of learning about the attack. That is a normal thing to do when one is attacked--figure out how and why and work to prevent that avenue from working again. I am not saying they should have been looking for crimes at the DNC, DCCC, or Clinton's campaign...just fact-finding on the attach.
Naming the attackers is good theater, but it is not like they will be sent here for prosecution. It is more likely in those situations in the intel world that they could take our findings and figure out how we caught them. In human intel, that kind of knowledge can lead to danger for the source.
Meddling will not soon stop...
Quote: RonCThere was meddling. Is there anyone here who did not know that?
What is your argument? A crime is okay?
Quote: billryanAt a key moment yesterday, a typographic error occupied. An apostrophe was misplaced and a letter omitted. Evidently even Seriously Stable Geniuses need to proof read.
I call BS. There is an edit button and the person the comment was addressed to even brought it to your attention.
Max, AIUI, you misunderstood Bill's comment. The typo referred to was in trumps speech. Please check your trusted media source for details of trump's correction.Quote: MaxPenI call BS. There is an edit button and the person the comment was addressed to even brought it to your attention.
That said, the context of Bills response is confusing.
Quote: OnceDearMax, AIUI, you misunderstood Bill's comment. The typo referred to was in trumps speech. Please check your trusted media source for details of trump's correction.
That said, the context of Bills response is confusing.
If a Trumper addressed another member as a pos, I can guarantee that none of this BS would be going on. You wonder why people accuse the mods of bias. Give me a break. Put his quote up in context that he was responding to(BBB's question). There is no confusion as to what is transpiring. Do your ungrateful job. Otherwise precedent has been established to refer to others as a pos.
Quote: RSCan someone just write what the actual message was and what it was supposed to be? I understand typos happen, but I don't even know where it was or what it was supposed to be....nor what it may have to do with Trump's speech.
Have to go back to about page 481. Anyone with a basic level of comprehension will understand that billryan is implying that Boz is addicted to opioids and is a pos. It's not difficult. It does seem to be a challenge for our illustrious rule enforcement officers though.
Hell I have one trying to get me to look at Trump's would/wouldn't mess. As if that has anything to do with this issue.
Quote: rxwineWhat is your argument? A crime is okay?
Did I say that? Nope.
Meddling happened.
It was ignored for some reason by one President; I have read that it may have been to help keep other issues moving forward with Russia, which is possible in that the Democrats were supremely confident of the election outcome. Why spend political capital on it right them?
I chided the other President for conflating the meddling that did happen with the "collusion" that we have not seen proof of yet...too busy defending himself and not busy enough attacking the meddling issue.
A lot of times, the names of people working against us (like the indicted folks) are not released for fear of compromising our sources for getting that information. Tossing a whole bunch of names of folks you will likely never prosecute is a bit risky if we used live intel folks on the ground to gather the info that they did it.
I wonder why thorough exams were not done of the equipment hacked to learn the "how" and possibly paths of counterattack. Not a word about anything criminal on our side--just figuring out the issue.
We need to constantly come up with better ways to fight those hackers who attack us or meddle in our business. I don't think we have made it important enough.
Quote: MaxPenHave to go back to about page 481. Anyone with a basic level of comprehension will understand that billryan is implying that Boz is addicted to opioids and is a pos. It's not difficult. It does seem to be a challenge for our illustrious rule enforcement officers though.
Hell I have one trying to get me to look at Trump's would/wouldn't mess. As if that has anything to do with this issue.
I did think that someone would at least say something about that...
Quote: RonC
A lot of times, the names of people working against us (like the indicted folks) are not released for fear of compromising our sources for getting that information. Tossing a whole bunch of names of folks you will likely never prosecute is a bit risky if we used live intel folks on the ground to gather the info that they did it.
Btw, I don't even know what the argument is about people who may never leave the safety of Russia, as we do it all the time with other people. Been trying to get Roman Polanski for years. We have terrorists on lists, if they ever show up to be picked up by Interpol. And sometimes we catch them somewhere Same with other criminals.. Many we don't get them until many years later, but so what. What would you rather we do?
Bill, Would you care to explain this comment? and the later one where you responded to BBB and refered to a typo.Quote: billryanSeems like the opioid crisis has hit the forum.
On the bright side, it couldn't happen to a more deserving pos.
Thanks in advance.
To be fair, Boz did go on a posting spree and got a little aggressive. I'm not sure if opioids have that effect on people, I think that is more of a crack thing.Quote: OnceDearBill, Would you care to explain this comment? and the later one where you responded to BBB and refered to a typo.
Thanks in advance.
I keep telling Boz not go get high on his own supply (-;
Quote: OnceDearBill, Would you care to explain this comment? and the later one where you responded to BBB and refered to a typo.
Thanks in advance.
I would like to see those same opportunities afforded to ZenKing in the future.....lol
billryan has already accomplished making the moderation look foolish. Let's give him an opportunity to twist the knife some more. Sometimes I feel like I live on a different planet.
Why would one ever serve themselves up on a silver platter like this?Quote: MaxPenSometimes I feel like I live on a different planet.
Quote: rxwineBtw, I don't even know what the argument is about people who may never leave the safety of Russia, as we do it all the time with other people. Been trying to get Roman Polanski for years. We have terrorists on lists, if they ever show up to be picked up by Interpol. And sometimes we catch them somewhere Same with other criminals.. Many we don't get them until many years later, but so what. What would you rather we do?
Perhaps none of our on-the-ground intel folks (spies) are in any danger because of the way the intelligence was gathered.
Polanski and known terrorists are a different issue.
The point is that sometimes we don't name the spies from the other side because they might use that information to figure out, over time, who our spies are...
What would I do? it depends on whether or not naming them could compromise our methods or personnel. All I said was that sometimes these kind of spies don't get named...but it isn't like we aren't after them in different ways for spying. They can never leave Russia but naming them could put one of ours in Russia in danger...hopefully, naming them was not an issue that put assets in danger.
What the hell was the reason for repeatedly lying about the Trump tower meeting? REPEATEDLY lying about it? Repeatedly....
If you want to make the argument that they didn't KNOWINGLY collude with the Russians, fine. Make that argument. But then you'd have to claim that they are INCOMPETENT.
Take your pick.
Quote: billryanAt a key moment yesterday, a typographic error occupied. An apostrophe was misplaced and a letter omitted. Evidently even Seriously Stable Geniuses need to proof read.
Nope. I needed you either to
A) own up to your rudeness, perhaps apologize
Or
B) put your comment in context of the discussion and away from another member.
Lacking either, (I read back, and couldn't connect it to either one) I have to take it as an insult to Boz, that when asked, you did not correct or clarify .
3 days.
Quote: AxelWolfWhy would one ever serve themselves up on a silver platter like this?
I thought that when writing that statement. But I own what I say and let it be. I am glad that I live in the world that I do.
Quote: EvenBobIf it was Obama today, Putin would
have turned his back and dropped
his pants, and Obama would have
buried his whole face in Putin's
anal groove, and the media would be
delirious with tears of joy and
Obama would be a hero.
Oh. Nice imagery there. I hope it was orignal thinking.
While Obama was not a strong president, he never made a disgrace of the USA like yesterday. Certainly it was an Obama Whitehouse who did the the right thing by organizing global support against the illegal occupation of Crimea and imposed sanctions to weaken the country.
Quote: beachbumbabsNope. I needed you either to
A) own up to your rudeness, perhaps apologize
Or
B) put your comment in context of the discussion and away from another member.
Lacking either, (I read back, and couldn't connect it to either one) I have to take it as an insult to Boz, that when asked, you did not correct or clarify .
3 days.
I thought he was suspended on 6/20. Was that overturned or something? If not, Isn't it supposed to be 7 days.
Crimea applied to Russia to join, and voted to do so. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis/crimea-votes-to-join-russia-obama-orders-sanctions-idUSBREA1Q1E820140306Quote: boymimboOh. Nice imagery there. I hope it was orignal thinking.
While Obama was not a strong president, he never made a disgrace of the USA like yesterday. Certainly it was an Obama Whitehouse who did the the right thing by organizing global support against the illegal occupation of Crimea and imposed sanctions to weaken the country.
Why bother, fake news is going to print what they want anyway.Quote: rxwineTrump's private meeting with Putin lasted 2 hours, with just interpreters present. At the least, even if it's all top secret, America deserved a written record kept of that conversation.
Quote: rxwineTrump's private meeting with Putin lasted 2 hours, with just interpreters present. At the least, even if it's all top secret, America deserved a written record kept of that conversation.
I’m sure Putin has a recording of it.
Quote: ams288I’m sure Putin has a recording of it.
He'll add it to his collection.
Quote: SteverinosNo proof of collusion?
What the hell was the reason for repeatedly lying about the Trump tower meeting? REPEATEDLY lying about it? Repeatedly....
If you want to make the argument that they didn't KNOWINGLY collude with the Russians, fine. Make that argument. But then you'd have to claim that they are INCOMPETENT.
Take your pick.
At this point, today...right now, are you more convinced that Hillary Clinton broke the law regarding the server and emails than that Donald Trump, in his relations with the Russians, did based on actual stuff like, well, proof?
The correct answer is Hillary Clinton, of course. Now the correct answer could become "both of them did" if actual evidence shows up linking Donald Trump to a crime.
...and the crime has to be something other than "collusion"...which is not a crime at all.
