Board index There's always a bit of moaning. Nextdoorland
in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!
Re: President Donald J. Trump
Postby Count Machuki » 29 Mar 2019, 17:48
Sneelock wrote: we need new voters and lots of 'em.
Angry White Men are TERRIFIED of this prospect. According to Right Wing Dad (and, as it turns it Laura Ingraham) our VERY CULTURE is under attack through immigration and low birth rates. Those non White folks are gonna take the raisins out of our potato salad and have us living in YURTS before you know it, snee. Only TRUMP can save us!
in an email entitled 'Actuarial Certainty,' RWD wrote: The attached video [REDACTED FOR FUCK's SAKE] lays out the situation faced by Western civilization. It is ten years old, and exactly what it predicted would happen has happened and continues to happen. Our effectively open borders were a recipe for cultural suicide, now it's just a matter of time. Even if our borders were sealed today, it would be over:
Get ready for a very rough ride
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D
Minnie the Minx
funky thigh collector
Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South
Postby Minnie the Minx » 29 Mar 2019, 17:55
Well raisins in potato salad is an abomination and we should be happy!!!
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.
Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?
Minnie the Minx wrote: Well raisins in potato salad is an abomination and we should be happy!!!
Do you want me to teach you how to say that in Spanish?
Yes please!!!
Pues, pasas en una ensalada de papa es un abominación y debemos estar felices!!!
Also Hail Marx/Satan
Have you been at the rum, darling??
Minnie the Minx wrote: Have you been at the rum, darling??
Aguardiente.
But no. Too much coffee, maybe?
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Postby Snarfyguy » 29 Mar 2019, 23:58
Apologies for quoting at length.
Chait:
Just as it did after the 2016 election, the mainstream media has undergone ritual flagellation and self-flagellation. In the immediate aftermath of Barr's letter, news reports concluded that Mueller had found no collusion between Trump and Russia. It followed from this premise that two and a half years of endless disclosures revealing secret contacts between Trump's campaign and Russia had been debunked. Since there was no collusion, all the reports of collusion had to be wrong.
In one prominent Wall Street Journal column that Trump has promoted, Sean Davis charged, "America's blue-chip journalists botched the entire story, from its birth during the presidential campaign to its final breath Sunday — and they never stopped congratulating themselves for it. Last year the New York Times and Washington Post shared a Pulitzer Prize" for their coverage of the Russia scandal. Davis's column did not identify a single error in the stories either newspaper published about Trump's connections to Russia.
Indeed, nobody else has either. While a handful of prominent scoops came under question, very few of the underpinnings of the Trump-Russia narrative have been challenged in any serious way. That is because the premise of total exoneration insisted upon by Trump's giddy defenders is false.
Collusion has somehow become a talismanic word removed from its common pre-2017 meaning, so let's simply say — based on realities ranging from Mueller's indictment of Roger Stone to Donald Trump Jr.'s taking a meeting to pursue "Russia and its government's support for Trump" — that the Trump campaign actively cooperated with Russia's efforts on its behalf. In itself, Trump's covert pursuit of a deal worth several hundred million dollars that would disappear if he angered Putin makes for a historic scandal.
None of these gross betrayals of the public interest may constitute a crime. (The U.S. criminal code is not exactly tailored for scenarios like foreign dictators stealing emails in order to help a mobbed-up reality-show buffoon win a presidential election.) Mueller has earned enough credibility that his decision not to bring charges of criminal conspiracy should be presumed fair.
Barr, however, has not. The attorney general's relevant work history consists of helping a Republican administration cover up a massive scandal (Iran-Contra) and then submitting a private memo trashing Mueller's obstruction-of-justice inquiry. Remember the furor that ensued when Bill Clinton spoke with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who was overseeing an investigation of his wife, on a tarmac during the campaign? That Barr auditioned for his job overseeing an investigation of Trump by writing a pro-Trump memo makes that controversy look absurdly persnickety. Only by the degraded standards of this administration is Barr considered an adult in the room. In a normal presidency, he'd be facing daily demands for his resignation.
Barr's letter plucks a single sentence from Mueller's report and surrounds it with exonerating language: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." Does "members" include or exclude unpaid outside advisers like Stone? Does "not establish" mean not prove beyond a reasonable doubt or find no evidence? Does "Russian government" include cutouts or agents, like Konstantin Kilimnik or WikiLeaks, or just official representatives of the government?
Barr does not specify, and reports have leapt to the most aggressive interpretation, deeming the issue settled and heaping scorn on those still clinging to suspicions about the president. "A day after Attorney General William P. Barr said special prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III hadn't found collusion between President Trump's campaign and Russian agents, [MSNBC host Rachel] Maddow — prime-time TV's primary and most tenacious proponent of the conspiracy angle — still was not buying it," wrote Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi. By turning "establish" into "found," and "the Russian government" into "Russian agents," Farhi advances a far stronger claim of exoneration than the line from Mueller actually made.
Mueller withheld judgment on charging Trump with obstruction of justice despite a long series of obstructive acts dating to the beginning of his presidency. A source "with direct knowledge of the investigation" tells the Daily Beast that they thought "Mueller was making a case to Congress to determine Trump's criminality." Instead, Barr imposed his own judgment and quashed the obstruction charge, in part because of an absence of underlying crimes. Trump, whose stated model for an AG is a Roy Cohn figure who would protect his personal interests, proceeded to gush that Barr is "incredible" and a "special, special person."
One glaring flaw with this logic is that the shortage of evidence of underlying crimes may well have been caused by the obstruction of justice. Specifically, Trump dangled pardons to Stone and Paul Manafort, who coordinated most closely with Russians and who might have supplied testimony against their former boss. Preventing the exposure of a crime is a big reason why people obstruct justice in the first place. Barr appears to be excusing a cover-up on the grounds that the cover-up succeeded.
This is an apt expression of the Trumpist approach to the legal system in particular and public ethics in general. The legal system is a blunt instrument of power rightly used against one's enemies. (Conservatives are now lustily demanding investigations of everybody they hold responsible for investigating Trump.) Lying is a natural and expected response that raises no suspicions, which is why the figures in Trump's campaign who lied about their contacts with Russians are now innocent victims owed apologies by the media.
The Barr letter is not an exoneration of Trump's conduct. It is something much worse: a vindication of his ethos.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/ ... d-him.html
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
Still Baron
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality
Postby Still Baron » 30 Mar 2019, 00:07
Seems about right to me.
Quaco wrote: Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote: If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
Postby Jimbo » 30 Mar 2019, 01:05
(The U.S. criminal code is not exactly tailored for scenarios like foreign dictators stealing emails in order to help a mobbed-up reality-show buffoon win a presidential election.)
I'm sorry but Chait's angle may scratch your itch but it will never sway any Russiagate skeptic, especially when Chait still believes the emails were stolen by Putin. That has been debunked. Had Mueller practiced due diligence and questioned UK ambassador Craig Murray who has said many times he delivered the HRC/DNC info to Wikileaks, had Mueller questioned Assange, had the FBI looked at the DNC/HRC computers themselves, had they done the forensic checks which former intelligence agents ran and proved it was a leak and not a hack and forget Mueller, had Chait himself questioned this particular counter to his belief, you know, just to see an opposing view, then he'd just might have had to readjust his angle of attack.
Last edited by Jimbo on 30 Mar 2019, 05:18, edited 3 times in total.
Mentally replace all the doofy company logos on people's cars and clothing with the word "CAPITALISM". C. Johnstone
Believe what you like. I have no position on any of that stuff.
Postby Sneelock » 01 Apr 2019, 23:41
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics ... x.htmlthis Security Clearance thing seems to be gathering steam. you can tell because the Republicans are doing Ye Olde "Out to Smear the President" routine.
music to my ears.
Also, I heard the White House is looking to appoint a "Border Czar". LOL. I remember when the very mention of the word "Czar" would send the Repubs into a tizzy.
Postby Snarfyguy » 02 Apr 2019, 03:23
Sneelock wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/security-clearances-house-oversight-committee-tricia-newbold/index.htmlthis Security Clearance thing seems to be gathering steam. you can tell because the Republicans are doing Ye Olde "Out to Smear the President" routine.
I'm getting to the point where I'm so jaded that it's hard to care but I'm glad SOMEBODY'S holding his feet to the fire, if they even are.
Postby Jimbo » 02 Apr 2019, 04:26
Jesus, this namby pamby actually legal stuff is just more in the same vein as the Russiagate bullshit. It isn't nothing but so far no one has actually been caught abusing their clearances. If the Dems want to smear Turmp there are so many more actual financial crimes and fucking WAR crimes! they could smear Trump with. But noooo ... Why won't the Dems attack Trump on his financial ties to mafia types - even Russian mafia types?
"I understand that the president has the right to grant these security clearances, but I have the duty and Congress has a duty to be a check on that system," Mr. Cummings told reporters. "If the top secrets of our country are being seen by eyes that should not see them, we ought to all be concerned." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/us/p ... ances.html
If. If. if.
PS - Why anyone would still rely on CNN or MSNBC for factual news is beyond me. Until they bring any from the small slew of notable lefty commentators/journos like Jimmy Dore, Max Blumenthal or Glenn Greenwald, then they remain useless for getting real info out to us. Meanwhile, FOX and RT do feature them. What does that tell you?
Meanwhile in the doubling down department
CNN And WaPo Demand That Trump Further Escalate Tensions With Russia
CNN has aired a segment in which pundit Fareed Zakaria tells the network's audience that the US president has "been unwilling to confront Putin in any way on any issue" and asks "will Venezuela be the moment when Trump finally ends his appeasement?"
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/cnn- ... 9b13d684a8
Overruling clearance denials seems like a pretty big deal to me. He could take a giant shit in the rose garden and you'd wag a finger at anybody who was upset about it. The President has a fucked up idea about what his job is. He seems to think he's the CEO or some shit.
Postby Still Baron » 02 Apr 2019, 12:21
Sneelock wrote: Overruling clearance denials seems like a pretty big deal to me. He could take a giant shit in the rose garden and you'd wag a finger at anybody who was upset about it. The President has a fucked up idea about what his job is. He seems to think he's the CEO or some shit.
I'm less worried about the actual facts of it for boring, legalistic reasons, and more exercised about the astounding cynicism and hypocrisy of the right. Can you imagine the wall to wall outrage if this happened in the Obama (or Hillary) Administration?
On Barr possibly fudging the "non-summary" of the Mueller Report: potentially huge or we're just grasping at straws because no legal liability will attach to Trump, who knows no shame or guilt?
Personally I'm vacillating wildly between the two poles.
Snarfyguy wrote: On Barr possibly fudging the "non-summary" of the Mueller Report: potentially huge or we're just grasping at straws because no legal liability will attach to Trump, who knows no shame or guilt?
It's 400 pages so I'll bet they're saved for slamming the Russians. Trump himself may not have been an agent but damn, those Ruskies still tried like hell to meddle in our democracy. Remember, Mueller lied to Congress about WMD to get us into Iraq so why wouldn't he lie, or exaggerate to keep our current MIC gravy train running?
Return to "Nextdoorland"