Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, February 19, 2018

OTP 19 February 2018: Does Buster Posey Have a Post-playing Career in Politics?

Buster Posey is one of the most accomplished catchers in baseball history. At 30 years old, he already has a Hall of Fame resume.

In eight full seasons with the Giants, Posey has won National League Rookie of the Year, NL MVP, four Silver Slugger awards, a Gold Glove, and is a five-time All-Star. While he still has plenty of years left, Posey has naturally thought a bit about what he would like to do once his playing days are done.

But, politics? Well, kind of.

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 19, 2018 at 08:04 AM | 2205 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: buster posey, giants, off-topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 23 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 08:44 AM (#5627245)
Speaking of 2020, I think Trump is likely to be the nominee, but if for some reason he is not (health, age, unpopularity, disgrace) who do people think the front runner is?
   102. manchestermets Posted: February 20, 2018 at 08:50 AM (#5627246)
I think you misunderstand. I've seen lots of movies where the queen says, "Off with their heads!"


nb - This is not in fact the queen of England.

My job sometimes pays me to use my own car to drive places for work - but if I quit or were fired, they wouldn't get ownership of my car.


Your ownership of your car isn't contigent on your work. Without having been monarchs, the British Royals wouldn't have the crown estates.

I've no huge issue with the concept of a constitutional monarchy - it's either that, or the ceremonial presidency that most European republics have (as noted above, who ever knows who the president of Germany is?) - but I have major issues with the UK's version of such. The main one is that it's so vast, with so many members of the extended family seeming to do things that anyone seems to think we should be interested in. It's so inescapable compared to other European monarchies. When I've visited the Netherlands, or Spain, or Norway, the fact that they are monarchies isn't shoved in your face anything like as much as it is in Britain. Now, this may be a function of having a monarch who hasn't had the decency to let someone else have a go after such an extended period, but there's a definite cult of personality growing up around the current queen. When I last flew out of Heathrow Airport, I discovered that the terminal I was flying from had been renamed The Queen's Terminal for no readily apparent reason. The major underground railway line that is due to open this year in London will be called The Elizabeth Line (the second underground line in London to be named in her honour, along with the various Jubilee bridges and walkways scattered around the place). The tower in the Palace of Westminster that Big Ben lives in was recently renamed the Elizabeth Tower. It's wearying. There is also a question of how much actual influence the royal family has on British government policy - there's certainly <a >a large amount of correspondence</a> between Prince Charles and various government ministers that a lot of effort was expended into keeping secret. For all the talk that the British monarchy is only ceremonial, I think it has a lot more influence than most people think.
   103. Morty Causa Posted: February 20, 2018 at 08:53 AM (#5627247)
Rod Rosenstein's Letter Appointing Mueller Special Counsel

Note well that Mueller is NOT restricted to only investigating collusion.

However, he is explicitly directed to investigate links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
   104. manchestermets Posted: February 20, 2018 at 08:53 AM (#5627249)
Speaking of 2020, I think Trump is likely to be the nominee, but if for some reason he is not (health, age, unpopularity, disgrace) who do people think the front runner is?


Pence? If disgrace is the reason Trump isn't, then presumably Pence would be the incumbent?

(Idle thought: if a president were to be impeached during their first term, is there anything to stop them running again in subsequent elections?)
   105. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:01 AM (#5627250)
However, he is explicitly directed to investigate links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.


Sure to be a dead-end, as Putin himself told Trump there were no such efforts from the Russian government.
   106. BrianBrianson Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:03 AM (#5627251)
Historically sorting things out is a bit tough, but without them having been monarchs, they wouldn't be the Crown Estates. Though, since they predate the kind of public/private separation we're talking about now, it's possible to view them with a certain ambiguity, I suppose. But they didn't get them because they're the monarchs.

Now, this may be a function of having a monarch who hasn't had the decency to let someone else have a go after such an extended period,


Apart from Charles himself, only hardcore republicans want Libby to let Chuck have a go. Maybe for an afternoon before it's turned over to Billy, but I think that's it. Liz is quite popular, and it's almost certainly better for everything to get named after her than 70s TV presenters.

   107. manchestermets Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:06 AM (#5627252)
But they didn't get them because they're the monarchs.


They certainly didn't get them through their own hard work and thrift.


Apart from Charles himself, only hardcore republicans want Libby to let Chuck have a go.


But, as so few seem to have noticed, with a monarchy you don't get that option. So many people proudly declare themselves monarchists, while thinking that they have any say in who becomes monarch.
   108. Count Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:09 AM (#5627253)
DJTJR continues to be the worst Trump (non-office-holding edition). He liked this tweet:

VIDEO: Outspoken Trump-Hating School Shooting Survivor is Son of FBI Agent; MSM Helps Prop Up Incompetent Bureau


This isn't far off from Trump Sr.'s own tweet blaming the school shooting on the FBI focusing on Russia, which was IMO his worst ever. Anyway, surely Trump and company are so obsessed with shutting down the FBI investigation and smearing the FBI because they did nothing wrong.
   109. BrianBrianson Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:13 AM (#5627257)
Technically, we do get a say in who becomes monarch - you may have noticed the order of succession was recently changed. But if monarchists have a slogan, it'd be "Long Live The Queen", not "Let Someone Else Have Go". Yeah, that precludes Chuck getting a shot for the forseeable future, but such is life. Hell, Vicky was popular enough in Canada we still force Libby to celebrate her birthday in May.
   110. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:16 AM (#5627258)
nb - This is not in fact the queen of England.
Duh. That's Madeline Albright.
   111. Ishmael Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:17 AM (#5627259)
Now, this may be a function of having a monarch who hasn't had the decency to let someone else have a go after such an extended period, but there's a definite cult of personality growing up around the current queen.

When Rama IX died recently, British coverage of the national mourning was as if the Thai reverence for their monarch (and Rama in particular) was some kind of exotic, superstitious practice. And I’m thinking, when the Queen does finally die, the reaction of the British press and public is likely to be an international embarrassment of Diana proportions.

And it’s true that the Thais I know were really cut up about Rama, and that the Thai monarchy under Rama is sort of the best case scenario for a uniting, stabilizing national symbol. But that sort of reverence isn’t healthy, it’s a cult.
   112. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:20 AM (#5627260)
(Idle thought: if a president were to be impeached during their first term, is there anything to stop them running again in subsequent elections?
The constitution allows, but does not require, that an impeached official can be denied future federal office. (However, there's a question whether the word "office" in the clause includes the presidency.) If congress did not impose that restriction, then yes he could run again.

Pedantry alert: anyone can run; the question would be whether he's eligible to hold the office if he won.
   113. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5627261)
And it’s true that the Thais I know were really cut up about Rama, and that the Thai monarchy under Rama is sort of the best case scenario for a uniting, stabilizing national symbol. But that sort of reverence isn’t healthy, it’s a cult.


When I was in Thailand for a month in 1990 they would play the national anthem and show a montage of the King before movies. Everyone stood and was respectful, yes including me, because it was clear this was no laughing matter, they were serious. It was odd, but hey their country.
   114. bunyon Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5627262)
Pedantry alert: anyone can run; the question would be whether he's eligible to hold the office if he won.

This came up during the birther inquiries but I never saw if it was resolved: who decides who is eligible? I assume the Supreme Court but someone would have to sue. Would it be the winner's opponents? The opposition party? Any random citizen?
   115. Count Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:31 AM (#5627265)
Eh, Thailand viciously punishes lese majesty which the UK does not (this is the bat signal for Greg K...).
   116. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:31 AM (#5627266)
Pedantry alert: anyone can run; the question would be whether he's eligible to hold the office if he won.


If fitness isn't a requirement, eligibility does seem awfully pedantic.
   117. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:32 AM (#5627267)
Trump Tries to Shift Blame to Obama for Not Countering Russian Meddling

I am sympathetic to this argument from anyone else. I think a case could be made that Obama mishandled the election and what Russia was doing. I think it was an overabundance of caution (maybe not the right word) combined with too much confidence Hillary was going to win. However, it is a bit rich that the driver of the getaway car is criticizing the bank for its lax security.
   118. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:32 AM (#5627268)

Another (minor) Mueller indictment.


EDIT: Er, that is, Mueller indicted someone; Mueller wasn't indicted.
   119. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:36 AM (#5627271)
This came up during the birther inquiries but I never saw if it was resolved: who decides who is eligible? I assume the Supreme Court but someone would have to sue. Would it be the winner's opponents? The opposition party? Any random citizen?
Well, the first pass would be the states' election officials. They would decide whether to put the person on their respective states' ballots. If they rejected a candidate, the candidate himself would sue. That's the easiest way to get the matter before the courts.

Otherwise, it's a rather messy political question (depending on what office we're discussing), but it may be that only a candidate who loses to an ineligible candidate would have standing to sue.
   120. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:38 AM (#5627272)
By the way has this site been linked to yet? It is pretty cool - Partisan Gerrymandering Historical Data

You can look back through history, it has the states and state houses, basically it is very cool. I don't see an obvious partisan bias in presentation. I recommend clicking through and having a look.
   121. Ishmael Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:41 AM (#5627273)
Eh, Thailand viciously punishes lese majesty which the UK does not (this is the bat signal for Greg K...).

That's true. But one of the reasons it has been possible to accept suppression of criticism of the Monarchy in the 21st Century is because people ####### loved Bhumibol. It will be harder to sustain under Rama X. As manchestermets and Brian say, people accept the Monarchy's perquisites under Elizabeth. If we get Charles...
   122. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:44 AM (#5627275)
As manchestermets and Brian say, people accept the Monarchy's perquisites under Elizabeth. If we get Charles...


So I admit I largely ignore the British Monarchy, so maybe everyone else in the universe knows this, but why is Charles so looked down on? What little I hear about him is universally negative, but always stated in fashion of a very vague and generalized distaste, there are never any specifics.
   123. BrianBrianson Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:50 AM (#5627278)
The Zeroeth order answer is that everyone loves Diana. Like, really loves Diana. Like, when Diana died, some guy felt compelled to come into the Pizza Pizza* I was grabbing a slice at and tell everyone Diana had died. He's also not terribly charismatic.

*Twenty years ago, this wasn't so unreasonable as it sounds now.
   124. DavidFoss Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:57 AM (#5627280)
If we get Charles...

He'll be so old and he already looks it. If he would have ascended in the 1990s, that would have been a PR disaster but he'll be turning 70 this year. He'll have a short and forgettable reign sort of like Edward VII (1901-1910).

I'll agree with the other poster above in that the family needs to trim their size a bit. The Princess Michael was in the news a few months ago for saying something offensive and we all had to google to figure out who she was and that her husband was indeed high in the line of succession back in the 1940s when he was a boy.
   125. Greg K Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:59 AM (#5627281)
Eh, Thailand viciously punishes lese majesty which the UK does not (this is the bat signal for Greg K...).

Hey, I'm just sitting back and enjoying the discussion of monarchy. Finally, a fun topic here!

And speaking of Charles III. I managed to pick up the Charles I book. Thanks Lassus! It's already paid dividends. Oddly enough Christmas gifts from the rest of you guys still haven't arrived. I can only blame the uncertainties over cross-border trade during NAFTA renegotiations for so long, at a certain point it feels like some people have simply forgot.
   126. Ishmael Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:02 AM (#5627282)
So I admit I largely ignore the British Monarchy, so maybe everyone else in the universe knows this, but why is Charles so looked down on? What little I hear about him is universally negative, but always stated in fashion of a very vague and generalized distaste, there are never any specifics.

I’m not the best person to ask, as I’m someone who prefers Charles to pretty much any of the other royals. But some reasons he is generally disliked are:

His private life is or has been seen as a bit of an embarrassment (the Diana and Camilla stuff. And as Brian says, people love/d Diana). Without this, people probably wouldn’t care about the other stuff.

He is clumsy and awkward in public, which makes him a poor advocate for the monarchy, and not particularly suited to the soft power roles the various royals tend to occupy.

He has attempted to influence government policy in ways that have come to light, violating the fuzzy lines of propriety concerning royal behaviour.

He is a proponent of alternative medicine (and has other beliefs and interests that don’t endear him to traditionalists).

He was, supposedly, fairly friendly with Jimmy Savile.
   127. Greg K Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5627283)
I’m not the best person to ask, as I’m someone who prefers Charles to pretty much any of the other royals. But some reasons he is generally disliked are:

Is that due to the lack of options, or a positive preference for him?

I thought about crafting a more leading question, but why not be direct since I'm curious: what do you think of Charles' ideas about religion?
   128. BrianBrianson Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:10 AM (#5627284)
I also don't think Charles is so disliked as he once was. As much as the Diana and Camilla stuff damaged him, subsequently sticking with Camilla has made it seem less dastardly on his part, and more tragic. And he's slowly eased into his awkwardness. Like, twenty years ago, I think people saw him as a prat, but now he's seen as more of a dork.

Being buttressed by William probably helps a lot too.
   129. Greg K Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:11 AM (#5627285)
Also, obligatory.

No! Not the Queen of Hearts! The Rose of England!...and Scotland and Wales, bits of Ireland, NO! How did it...there's no God!
   130. BDC Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:13 AM (#5627286)
He is a proponent of alternative medicine (and has other beliefs and interests that don’t endear him to traditionalists)

Other items I remember over the years are Charles talking to trees, and his contempt for any architecture later than Victorian.

There was also an incident – this is 30 years or more ago now, which is also when I was paying more attention to the UK – where Charles was recorded, or quoted, as complaining about some of his staff and the entitlement they felt – privileged little snots who hadn't worked to get where they were and needed everything handed to them, that sort of thing. I cannot now find the quotes but maybe somebody will remember them. Needless to say the whole tirade showed an almost inconceivable lack of self-awareness.
   131. Greg K Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:13 AM (#5627287)
I also don't think Charles is so disliked as he once was. As much as the Diana and Camilla stuff damaged him, subsequently sticking with Camilla has made it seem less dastardly on his part, and more tragic. And he's slowly eased into his awkwardness. Like, twenty years ago, I think people saw him as a prat, but now he's seen as more of a dork.

Yeah I think Charles is more pitied now than he was. The Crown certainly played on that in its most recent season. Though I'm not sure having a dork for a King is much better than having a prat.
   132. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:16 AM (#5627288)
When I was in Thailand for a month in 1990 they would play the national anthem and show a montage of the King before movies. Everyone stood and was respectful, yes including me, because it was clear this was no laughing matter, they were serious.


Was it still Yul Brenner at that time? I'd stand for him too.
   133. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:18 AM (#5627289)
Speaking of 2020, I think Trump is likely to be the nominee, but if for some reason he is not (health, age, unpopularity, disgrace) who do people think the front runner is?

That's easy: It'd be the thousand bucks that'd be leaving Ray's pocket and headed in my direction. (smile)
   134. DavidFoss Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:19 AM (#5627290)
Was it still Yul Brenner at that time? I'd stand for him too.

That movie was banned in Thailand.

It is a bit ironic that so many Thai takeout places in white suburban areas are called "The King and I". Its an easy test that the food is probably not authentic.
   135. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:23 AM (#5627292)
Ray, #75

9 months since Mueller was appointed and still nothing about Trump-Russia collusion. It's getting late late. But maybe something collusion-related will eventually pan out.


Clap, #80

And the investigation started six months earlier under Comey. If there is something there, you'd think its be coming out fairly soon. It's not like the WH is delaying things by pushing privilege claims to the Supreme Court.


I love how you guys think Mueller should be working on your timetable...
   136. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:23 AM (#5627293)
DJTJR continues to be the worst Trump (non-office-holding edition). He liked this tweet:
VIDEO: Outspoken Trump-Hating School Shooting Survivor is Son of FBI Agent; MSM Helps Prop Up Incompetent Bureau

This isn't far off from Trump Sr.'s own tweet blaming the school shooting on the FBI focusing on Russia, which was IMO his worst ever. Anyway, surely Trump and company are so obsessed with shutting down the FBI investigation and smearing the FBI because they did nothing wrong.

What was just as disgusting as that "Tom Paine" tweet were some of the comments it elicited.
   137. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5627295)
81

I'd call it JesusDon'tLetThemBreed.com
   138. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:28 AM (#5627296)
I love how you guys think Mueller should be working on your timetable...


Surely you remember all the times they complained about how slowly investigations against Obama and various Clinton's went, right? Time flies when you are having fun, and Mueller's investigation is very much not fun for them.
   139. Lassus Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:29 AM (#5627297)
I love how you guys think Mueller should be working on your timetable...

Seriously, it took the entire IRS longer than 9 months a couple years ago to figure out why my taxes from 2004 were so screwed up, and I made like 17K that year.
   140. -- Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:32 AM (#5627299)
If there is something there, you'd think its be coming out fairly soon.


If there was something collusion-significant there, it would have come out long, long ago.
   141. OCF Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:34 AM (#5627301)
Another Mueller indictment for lying to investigators (specifically the Mueller team): a lawyer who worked for Manafort and Gates, and it seems to involve Ukraine.

Why would a lawyer get into this? If he didn't want to answer the question or didn't want to produce the document, wouldn't he say, "I can't answer that, it's privileged?" Even if it's not, then there is legal wrangling about whether it is or isn't privileged, not a criminal case.
   142. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:38 AM (#5627303)
I love how you guys think Mueller should be working on your timetable...


They're running out of caveats, obfuscations, and distractions - so you can understand why they get antsy.
   143. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:39 AM (#5627305)
Another Mueller indictment for lying to investigators (specifically the Mueller team): a lawyer who worked for Manafort and Gates, and it seems to involve Ukraine.

Why would a lawyer get into this? If he didn't want to answer the question or didn't want to produce the document, wouldn't he say, "I can't answer that, it's privileged?" Even if it's not, then there is legal wrangling about whether it is or isn't privileged, not a criminal case.


Maybe David would dispute me on this, but I've sometimes gotten the impression that there are lawyers out there who aren't all that bright, even some of the real ones.
   144. Ishmael Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5627306)
Is that due to the lack of options, or a positive preference for him?

I thought about crafting a more leading question, but why not be direct since I'm curious: what do you think of Charles' ideas about religion?

It’s not positive preference. I think that Charles simply appears more human to me. I understand the reasons for the royals carefully curated public image, but it makes my skin crawl. I suppose some people find corgis humanizing.

I’m not saying that I think he’d be an effective at protecting or advancing the royal position as King. So I feel a bit like Yankee Clapper talking up John Kerry or whoever for 2020.

Charles' statements on religion are part of what I find endearing about him. He’s a bit of a dilettante but there are things, like ecumenicalism, that he feels are worth trying to advocate publicly.
   145. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:42 AM (#5627308)
Another Mueller indictment for lying to investigators (specifically the Mueller team): a lawyer who worked for Manafort and Gates, and it seems to involve Ukraine.

Why would a lawyer get into this? If he didn't want to answer the question or didn't want to produce the document, wouldn't he say, "I can't answer that, it's privileged?" Even if it's not, then there is legal wrangling about whether it is or isn't privileged, not a criminal case.


I suppose Skadden Arps is large enough that they're bound to have a problem attorney or two, but it's still somewhat surprising to see a firm of their size and stature bound up in this - even if only by the actions of a single attorney. You'd think they'd have sourced this to some kind of boutique firm, no?
   146. bunyon Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:45 AM (#5627309)
This is probably foolish but I have no idea why people here, or anywhere, discuss to such lengths the Mueller investigation. I have no idea if Trump colluded or didn't. And neither does anyone else outside of the Trump team and, perhaps, Mueller's team. Why not let it run until they announce some findings? There are actual issues we know a lot more about that are hand. If a discussion is desired about electioneering, why not discuss how to prevent shenanigans in the next election?

Anyway, carry on. But, yeah, the monarchy discussion is much more interesting than people squawking back and forth about an investigation none are privy to.
   147. Stormy JE Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:45 AM (#5627310)
Just stumbled across an oldie but a goodie...

Obama mulls giving Moscow data on missile defense:
WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - The Obama administration disclosed on Tuesday that it is considering sharing some classified U.S. data as part of an effort to allay Russian concerns about a controversial antimissile shield.

The administration is continuing negotiations begun under former President George W. Bush on a defense technical cooperation agreement with Moscow that could include limited classified data, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Brad Roberts told a House of Representatives’ Armed Services subcommittee.

He gave no details on the sort of data that might be shared under such an agreement.
Senate Republicans had to block Michael McFaul's ambassadorial nomination to Moscow until Obama agreed not to pull this stunt.

Good times.
   148. Lassus Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:50 AM (#5627311)
than people squawking back and forth about an investigation none are privy to.

And when was the last time you opined on front office discussions you weren't privy to? ;-)
   149. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:54 AM (#5627314)
If a discussion is desired about electioneering, why not discuss how to prevent shenanigans in the next election?


So long as ~1/3 of the country is in a Dear Leader trance, that's simply not gonna happen.

Tillerson says such stuff continues and there's nothing we can do about it.

McMaster decries it in Europe - and his boss attacks him because he forgot the "important part".

Pretending there's any cure for this sickness so long as Trump remains is silly.
   150. BrianBrianson Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:57 AM (#5627316)
Yeah, when Bush tried to establish friendly relations with Russia, it was misguided.

When Obama tried to do it, it was naive.

So where are we today?
   151. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5627317)
So where are we today?


Today, we are at a place where at absolute best foreign policy is being driven by a big orange baby's narcissistic need for glorification. And supposed Very Serious People play along.
   152. BDC Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5627318)
When I've visited the Netherlands, or Spain, or Norway, the fact that they are monarchies isn't shoved in your face anything like as much as it is in Britain

I think that Margrethe, the current Queen of Denmark, is popular and respected. My in-laws gave La Dernière a curious compliment the last time we were there: they said that she spoke Danish "just like the Queen." Or it was sort of a compliment; it also meant that her Danish was old-fashioned and not very idiomatic … Anyway, the remark gave me a sense that the Queen is the repository of correctness (as she is in England, "the Queen's English" being a real voice as well as a metaphor). But Margrethe is also much more hip than Elizabeth, being a painter of some distinction (in very modernist modes), and well-connected in the art world.

I see that she is newly widowed. Her consort Prince Henrik was popular too, and even the fact that they were known at times to be somewhat estranged humanized them.

You can walk right up to the various royal residences in Copenhagen in ways that you can't in London or Windsor. Imperial display is pretty muted in Denmark.
   153. Lest we forget Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5627319)
He should shut up and dribble.
   154. Ray (CTL) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:01 AM (#5627320)
I love how you guys think Mueller should be working on your timetable...

Surely you remember all the times they complained about how slowly investigations against Obama and various Clinton's went, right?


We did.


   155. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5627321)
Yeah, when Bush tried to establish friendly relations with Russia, it was misguided.

When Obama tried to do it, it was naive.

So where are we today?


Peak Cockholster.
   156. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5627322)
This is probably foolish but I have no idea why people here, or anywhere, discuss to such lengths the Mueller investigation. I have no idea if Trump colluded or didn't. And neither does anyone else outside of the Trump team and, perhaps, Mueller's team. Why not let it run until they announce some findings? There are actual issues we know a lot more about that are hand. If a discussion is desired about electioneering, why not discuss how to prevent shenanigans in the next election?


There are a couple of dynamics here. I think the main one is when one side sees the other discuss the investigation and present their view, they have an overwhelming desire to present their side, even if they have no new data. And Mueller shows up in the news a fair amount and is obviously politics, so here it gets discussed. And to be fair often we are learning more when it comes up, if only indirectly. Still Mueller is running a tight ship.

Many of the topics here get recycled a bunch - gun control is one where I could argue both sides in my sleep, so I just let my eyes glaze over and ignore it until a new topic shows up.

In total I agree with you and encourage you to bring up other topics for us to discuss. I periodically try to introduce a variety of topics (that gerrymander sire I linked to is interesting, go look at it and then comment), but people like to comment on what they will.
   157. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5627323)
Pretending there's any cure for this sickness so long as Trump remains is silly.

It'll continue as long as Trump's base keeps running interference for him, and those bogus "#NeverTrump" characters like JE are now a big and critical part of that base----even Romney now says he welcomes Trump's support.
   158. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5627324)
Peak Cockholster.


Not to be confused with Roy Moore's favorite courting game - peek-a-boo cockholster.
   159. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5627325)
146

I have no idea if Trump colluded or didn't. And neither does anyone else outside of the Trump team and, perhaps, Mueller's team. Why not let it run until they announce some findings?


A couple of reasons:

1 - there's a faction on the left that thinks/hopes Mueller will come up with something so potent, so smoking-gun-ish that it will result in Trump's impeachment/removal from office. As with the right-leaning people who screamed for Obama to be removed for 8 years, thinking that meant McCain or Romney got to take over, these individuals forget that that doesn't mean Hillary gets to be President; Pence does, which I think is far more dangerous.

2 - there's a bigger faction on the right that (deep down) thinks/is afraid Mueller will come up with something so potent, so smoking-gun-ish that it will result in Trump being exposed for the racist/sexist/misogynist/xenophobe/welcher/extortionist/crook that he is, thus proving those on the left correct. For this faction, that would be worse than his impeachment/removal from office.

I have that about right, boys?
   160. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:06 AM (#5627326)
If a discussion is desired about electioneering, why not discuss how to prevent shenanigans in the next election?

State Officials Are Returning to Paper Ballots

“Hoping to counter waves of Russian Twitter bots, fake social media accounts, and hacking attacks aimed at undermining American democracy, state election officials around the country are seizing on an old-school strategy: paper ballots,” the Boston Globe reports.

“In Virginia, election officials have gone back to a paper ballot system, as a way to prevent any foreign interference. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolfe this month ordered county officials to ensure new election equipment produces a paper record. Georgia lawmakers are considering legislation to replace a touch-screen voting system with paper.”


I have long been a proponent of paper ballots.
   161. Stormy JE Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5627329)
Yeah, when Bush tried to establish friendly relations with Russia, it was misguided.

When Obama tried to do it, it was naive.

So where are we today?
Putin didn't become a troublemaker to his neighbors until after Russia started profiting from its domestic hydrocarbon industry, ca. 2004. Bush's response to the invasion of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in August 2008 was mostly ineffective but at least Moscow was smart enough not to test W's resolve and invade the rest of Georgia.

So once Putin showed his fangs to the West, Obama decided the best course of action for the bilateral relationship was to... blame Bush and "reset" relations, which included the jettisoning of economic sanctions that had been leveled against Moscow.

It must really bother certain folks here to know that Trump's Russia policy, while far from ideal, is tougher than the Messiah's.
   162. BDC Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5627331)
I have long been a proponent of paper ballots

But they're going to have to employ 47%ers to count them! Much better that we should outsource vote-counting to contractors who will run it like a business and give taxpayers better ROI.
   163. dlf Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5627333)
Just stumbled across an oldie but a goodie...

Obama mulls giving Moscow data on missile defense:


I was just the other day reviewing some old information on the Star Wars missile defense plan from back in the 1980s ... one of the key selling points to argue that this wasn't a first strike weapon was that once operational, the technology would be freely given to the Soviets.

9 months since Mueller was appointed and still nothing about Trump-Russia collusion. It's getting late late. But maybe something collusion-related will eventually pan out.


Just curious and too lazy to check myself: how long was it between the first Bengahzi investigation and when the private email sham was uncovered? The FBI began investigating the Watergate break-in in July 1972, and in August 1974, more than two years after the break-in, President Nixon resigned.

   164. Ray (CTL) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5627334)
Another Mueller indictment for lying to investigators (specifically the Mueller team): a lawyer who worked for Manafort and Gates, and it seems to involve Ukraine.

Why would a lawyer get into this? If he didn't want to answer the question or didn't want to produce the document, wouldn't he say, "I can't answer that, it's privileged?" Even if it's not, then there is legal wrangling about whether it is or isn't privileged, not a criminal case.


If the lawyer was acting legally or at least ethically in representing the client that would have been the obvious play. But just from reading the indictment, it seems that his lying was to cover up the fact that he deleted emails so as not to produce them to Mueller. Likely he deleted the emails because he felt they were evidence of a crime.

Specifically, in this case apparently he (a) tried to delete emails in order to not produce them, including one particular email, and then (b) told one or more lies that were consistent with him hoping that Mueller wasn't going to find out that he tried to delete the emails.

So he got a few layers deep in this, which is why your obvious play wasn't going to work for him: he didn't want to produce the emails because they were evidence of a crime. Advising his client unethically or getting wrapped up in crimes with his client was his first problem. And then the rest of his problems flowed from there.

At least, this is my guess based on reading the indictment. I could be wrong.
   165. Shredder Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5627335)
1 - there's a faction on the left that thinks/hopes Mueller will come up with something so potent, so smoking-gun-ish that it will result in Trump's impeachment/removal from office. As with the right-leaning people who screamed for Obama to be removed for 8 years, thinking that meant McCain or Romney got to take over, these individuals forget that that doesn't mean Hillary gets to be President; Pence does, which I think is far more dangerous.
A clean Pence is probably more dangerous, but first, it would be nearly impossible for Mueller to find something so potent, so smoking-gunish that didn't also in some way put a pretty big stain on Pence. Second, even if Mueller finds something that doesn't in any way touch Pence, it would still do a crap ton of damage to the Republican brand, probably enough to neuter a Pence administration up to the next election. We're not talking about just changing a light bulb here.

But to get back to the question you were answering, it's all just trash talking between fans while the game is being played on the field. Only, in this case, the fans can't see the game, and every once in a while someone gives them an update on the score, which they each interpret as evidence that their team is winning.
   166. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:15 AM (#5627338)
I have that about right, boys?


I want to know what really happened and if there was wrongdoing have it - at the very least - exposed. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

I still doubt Trump will be impeached and really doubt he will be convicted and removed from office. And, based on what I know now, I don't want him impeached, I don't think it is at all warranted (may change with more information).

From a pure partisanship standpoint I think there are two political Democratic benefits. First it ties up the mind share of the GOP and Trump administration and overall makes it harder for them to enact their policies while under a dark cloud. It also makes it harder for staffing (retention and new hires) and overall makes life miserable for the administration. So far so good, with the combination of incompetence and distractions meaning thus far the GOP has only passed one major piece of steaming poop, which is way better than I feared, given they control basically all the levers of power in Washington and have huge control of the states as well.

Secondly, the results of the investigation - if there is any there there - can be used to expose to the voters how rotten to the core the GOP is right now, which should be a benefit for the Democrats (and thus far it certainly appears to be such). Mueller could be more cooperative and be leaking stuff, but honestly I like it this way better, even though it is to my relative partisan disadvantage.

Many liberals do seem to think Mueller = Magic and "ta da!", but I don't think it is the majority.
   167. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:18 AM (#5627340)
A clean Pence is probably more dangerous, but first, it would be nearly impossible for Mueller to find something so potent, so smoking-gunish that didn't also in some way put a pretty big stain on Pence


Having a lady lawyer interview Pence without his wife present would put a pretty big stain on Pence.
   168. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:19 AM (#5627342)
But they're going to have to employ 47%ers to count them! Much better that we should outsource vote-counting to contractors who will run it like a business and give taxpayers better ROI.


Here in Minnesota (at least in my district) we have paper ballots which are automatically read by OCR readers and tabulated by computer. No 47%ers needed. The advantage (of course) is there is something to physically recount as needed, and yet still the results are fast. And of course Minnesota is always near or on top of the nation for voter participation, so go team!
   169. bunyon Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM (#5627344)
And when was the last time you opined on front office discussions you weren't privy to? ;-)

Tebow thread. But it's a lot more clear that the Mets FO is a disaster than it is for the Trump WH.


In total I agree with you and encourage you to bring up other topics for us to discuss.

In retrospect, I think it started on the old thread but I think I've contributed a bit to the monarchy thread. And, in fact, other topics do keep coming up but there is a contingent here for whom this conversation is nothing but a Yes it is/no it isn't back and forth with neither side providing anything of actual substance. Mueller will, eventually, publish his results. At that time we can see who was right. I don't actually think it will matter as the GOP isn't going to impeach him short of mindblowing proof of treason that we (including many in the 30% of die-hard Trump supporters) can agree on. And, as someone said, even then Pence is POTUS. It's important we know what happened in 2014-16 but it isn't as important to know it soon as it is to know it completely because the knowledge isn't likely to change any facts on the ground.

I mean, I think it more likely the military takes power by coup than it is enough GOP senators vote to convict Trump, much less enough GOP representatives vote to impeach. (I don't think either scenario is anything like probable).


I have long been a proponent of paper ballots.

When I was in Chile, I got to watch the last election in the UK on the BBC (not BBC America but the actual beeb). They seem to have it down. The election is a real community event, the ballots paper and secured by representatives of several different parties. I may not like the results but there is NO question anything has been tampered with. We could have such a system tomorrow. And should. But, as with our fascination with investigations, we've decided speed and entertainment is more important than truth and accuracy. It's going to be our downfall if it hasn't already.
   170. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM (#5627345)
165

A clean Pence is probably more dangerous, but first, it would be nearly impossible for Mueller to find something so potent, so smoking-gunish that didn't also in some way put a pretty big stain on Pence. Second, even if Mueller finds something that doesn't in any way touch Pence, it would still do a crap ton of damage to the Republican brand, probably enough to neuter a Pence administration up to the next election. We're not talking about just changing a light bulb here.


Excellent point. I just want no part of the theocracy that would inevitably result from a Pence administration.

But that's just me...
   171. BrianBrianson Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5627346)
It must really bother certain folks here to know that Trump's Russia policy, while far from ideal, is tougher than the Messiah's.


wat?

Trump's Russia policy has been the most pro-Russia since ... well, I was tempted to say Andrew Johnson, but the true answer is probably FDR, circumstances being what they were.
   172. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5627348)

Obama decided the best course of action for the bilateral relationship was to... blame Bush and "reset" relations,
To be fair, this was Obama's approach to all foreign policy, not just wrt Russia. Iran, Cuba, Israel, etc.
   173. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:23 AM (#5627349)
New Pennsylvania Map Is Huge Midterm Development

First Read: ” This new map is the most consequential midterm development of 2018, and it’s going to produce a chain of events (members hunting for new districts, member-vs.-member races, possible retirements, even more lawsuits) that we’ll be following all year long.”


A linked tweet makes the point that what is really happening is six already existing Democratic targets just got much easier. When 24+ is the goal, 6 shifts to the good is welcome news.
   174. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:23 AM (#5627350)
What's Kushner doing with all that intel?

It's not like the guy is heavily in debt - and per his revised filings, getting more heavily in debt all the time... At least he hasn't been involved in any sketchy meetings with foreign banks where the subject of the meeting is disputed by the bank.
   175. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5627351)
To be fair, this was Obama's approach to all foreign policy, not just wrt Russia. Iran, Cuba, Israel, etc.


Obama lived in a complex world with many centers of power and many opportunities for the US to get sucked into the Bog of Stupid, which he really wanted to avoid. Both W and Trump live in very different worlds.

Which world of theirs is most true to reality? Well, I suspect time will tell. Scholars seem to prefer Obama's approach to either of the others, but it is way too early to truly evaluate.

wat?

Trump's Russia policy has been the most pro-Russia since ... well, I was tempted to say Andrew Johnson, but the true answer is probably FDR, circumstances being what they were.


Yeah, but if you only look at a select portion of the words and actions you can construct a facade that might appear like Obama was easier on Russia than either of the presidents on either side of him.
   176. Stormy JE Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5627352)
I was just the other day reviewing some old information on the Star Wars missile defense plan from back in the 1980s ... one of the key selling points to argue that this wasn't a first strike weapon was that once operational, the technology would be freely given to the Soviets.
There are no bets safer in the world than wagering that no one in the Kremlin ever mistook Obama for Reagan.
   177. bunyon Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5627353)
Obama decided the best course of action for the bilateral relationship was to... blame Bush and "reset" relations,

This is why Obama is not going to end up being regarded in the top tier of presidents. Great presidents aren't cautious and Obama was cautious to a fault. I think he had a bigger vision but he tried to creep up on it risk free and you just can't do that.
   178. -- Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5627354)
Trump's Russia policy has been the most pro-Russia since


Obama's, which was far more pro-Russia. To follow up on JE's post from earlier, Obama didn't just rather buffoonishly throw out the idea of sharing classified info re the missile shield with the Russians; he ended up completely caving on deploying the shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

He also gave Russia carte blanche in Syria after letting them help "dispose" of Syria's chemical weapons after failing to enforce his "red line."

Trump has done nothing for Russia remotely in this stratosphere.
   179. Stormy JE Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:32 AM (#5627355)
wat?

Trump's Russia policy has been the most pro-Russia since ... well, I was tempted to say Andrew Johnson, but the true answer is probably FDR, circumstances being what they were.
1. Light weapons to Ukraine green-lighted.
2. Hitting Russian mercenaries in Syria.
3. Hitting Russian patron in Damascus over chemical weapons use.
4. Tougher policy on Russian patron in Tehran.
5. Just-released Nuclear Posture Review tougher on the Kremlin.
6. Defense budget increased.
7. Intel budget increased.
8. Domestic energy policy further liberalized.
9. Support for Central and Eastern European allies increased.
   180. Joe Bivens will never admit, will make some excuse Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM (#5627356)
Just stumbled across an oldie but a goodie...


Ah yes, Dancing Monkey shitbag Juan, scouring the internets for Juanabouts.
   181. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:36 AM (#5627357)
#179 is a wonderful example of what I wrote in the second half of #175. It missed quotes from Obama and Trump though, so he doesn't get a full score.
   182. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:37 AM (#5627358)
1. Light weapons to Ukraine green-lighted.
2. Hitting Russian mercenaries in Syria.
3. Hitting Russian patron in Damascus over chemical weapons use.
4. Tougher policy on Russian patron in Tehran.
5. Just-released Nuclear Posture Review tougher on the Kremlin.
6. Defense budget increased.
7. Intel budget increased.
8. Domestic energy policy further liberalized.


LOL "domestic energy policy further liberalized". Tariffs on solar panels will have them quaking in their big furry hats in Moscow.

How are those universally-authorized sanctions going along, Comrade? Why does Trump continue to say "nyet"?
   183. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:37 AM (#5627359)
Sounds functional....

Their strained relationship was on rare public display over the weekend when the president chastised his national security adviser for telling a crowd at the Munich Security Conference that evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 election was “incontrovertible.”

“General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems,” Trump tweeted. “Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!”

* * *

Trump has continuously chafed at McMaster’s “rat-a-tat” briefing style, according to a senior White House aide, who likened it to machine-gun fire. The president at one point gestured toward the general in the midst of a lengthy briefing and said to others in the room, “Look at this guy, he’s so serious!”
   184. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:38 AM (#5627360)
There are no bets safer in the world than wagering that no one in the Kremlin ever mistook Obama for Reagan.


You don't think Obama would negotiate with terrorists and trade weapons for hostages? Next you'll tell me you don't think he's a Muslim either.
   185. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:38 AM (#5627361)
How are those universally-authorized sanctions going along, Comrade? Why does Trump continue to say "nyet"?


Jared's got a failing family real estate business to save... from his own failings. Those junk debts aren't going to extend lines of credit themselves!
   186. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:38 AM (#5627362)
“General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems,” Trump tweeted. “Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!”


Is Trump the whiniest ##### in Presidential history?
   187. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:40 AM (#5627364)
178

Trump has done nothing for Russia remotely in this stratosphere.


How are those sanctions coming along? Any day now, right?

EDIT: Goddammit, YR...enjoy your beverage...
   188. BrianBrianson Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:42 AM (#5627365)
Yeah, #179 is basically 80% contentless nonsense, and 20% kindergartener playing make-believe. Pushing Iran further into Russia's sphere isn't being tough on Russia. Pushing fossil fuels and hindering other energy development is cockholstering bar none - if you want to turn Russia into a non-player, make oil irrelevant. Increasing the defence budget isn't tough on Russia (and increasing the intel budget, when you freely share intel with Russians who turn up at the White House, is favoring the Ruskies).

Meanwhile, not implementing sanctions overwhelmingly approved by both houses, publicly praising Putin and excusing his authoritarianism ...

   189. -- Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5627366)
How are those universally-authorized sanctions going along, Comrade? Why does Trump continue to say "nyet"?


Because they're silly and toothless as compared to the things on the list.
   190. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5627367)
Playing kindergartner make-believe is day one of Trumpkin orientation. It is assumed that anyone accepted into this prestigious program has already pre-tested out of contentless nonsense.
   191. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:50 AM (#5627369)
Meanwhile, not implementing sanctions overwhelmingly approved by both houses, publicly praising Putin and excusing his authoritarianism ...


Trump had time to excoriate Oprah Winfrey though. Who says he doesn't work on weekends?
   192. BDC Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:53 AM (#5627370)
But surely y'all remember how the little green men infiltrated the Baltic States and reincorporated them into the Soviet Union. Be fair, that did happen on Obama's watch.
   193. -- Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:54 AM (#5627371)
Putin stole Crimea on Obama's watch. And invaded Ukraine.
   194. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5627375)
Putin stole Crimea on Obama's watch. And invaded Ukraine.


Just ask Trump's former campaign manager.
   195. -- Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:58 AM (#5627376)
Just ask Trump's former campaign manager.


No need to "ask" anyone.
   196. BDC Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5627377)
Putin stole Crimea on Obama's watch. And invaded Ukraine

Ah, the old Republican script of screaming "Who lost China?" right up till the day you visit China to cuddle with pandas and ping-pong players and Chairman Mao.
   197. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5627378)
No need to "ask" anyone.


That's what Trump's former campaign manager says.
   198. BrianBrianson Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5627379)
Well, if Trump gets Crimea returned to Ukraine for less than a hundred billion dollars, I'll write "Tougher than Obama on Russia" on a dollar store trophy and give it to Donnie next time I'm invited 'round his place for a soiree.
   199. Stormy JE Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5627380)
Yeah, #179 is basically 80% contentless nonsense, and 20% kindergartener playing make-believe. Pushing Iran further into Russia's sphere isn't being tough on Russia. Pushing fossil fuels and hindering other energy development is cockholstering bar none - if you want to turn Russia into a non-player, make oil irrelevant. Increasing the defence budget isn't tough on Russia (and increasing the intel budget, when you freely share intel with Russians who turn up at the White House, is favoring the Ruskies).

Meanwhile, not implementing sanctions overwhelmingly approved by both houses, publicly praising Putin and excusing his authoritarianism ...
You're hardly qualified to determine what's nonsense and make-believe.

First, you argue we're too tough on... the Iranian regime? Hysterical. No, make that beyond hysterical.

"Make oil irrelevant." This is even more idiotic. When hydrocarbon prices are high, Russia makes out like a bandit. Heck, even Obama's people agreed.

Also, only a moron would think Russia is happy to see the US boosting its defense and intel budgets.

And naturally, you choose only to highlight certain sanctions implementation, not others.
   200. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5627382)
Putin stole Obama's watch? Was it a Timex or an Omega or a Fossil?

Somebody should have told him Crimea doesn't pay...

Page 2 of 23 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(1872 - 8:21pm, Jun 24)
Last: sardonic

NewsblogMariners rallying to get Ichiro in Home Run Derby
(29 - 8:20pm, Jun 24)
Last: Greg Pope

NewsblogWeekend OMNICHATTER for June 23-24, 2018
(123 - 8:18pm, Jun 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOTP 2018 June 18: How Life Imitates the Congressional Baseball Game
(1634 - 8:16pm, Jun 24)
Last: Stormy JE

NewsblogReport: Cops Looking Into Hanley Ramirez's Possible Connection To Fentanyl Trafficking Ring
(20 - 7:46pm, Jun 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(971 - 7:39pm, Jun 24)
Last: Sunday silence

Sox TherapyA Pleasant Trip So Far
(57 - 7:34pm, Jun 24)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogLate Yankees Pitching Coach Billy Connors: A Character With A Huge Appetite For Life
(27 - 5:42pm, Jun 24)
Last: Man o' Schwar

Gonfalon CubsClicking
(95 - 5:13pm, Jun 24)
Last: Voodoo

NewsblogMike Trout Is Compiling a Historic Season and the Angels Are Wasting It Again
(56 - 3:33pm, Jun 24)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogBBTF ANNUAL CENTRAL PARK SOFTBALL GAME 2018
(129 - 2:59pm, Jun 24)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1944 Discussion
(11 - 6:42am, Jun 24)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogOMNICHATTER disagrees with your presentation, for June 22, 2018
(70 - 10:12pm, Jun 23)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogBrewers first baseman Eric Thames goes on DL with torn thumb ligament
(51 - 8:00pm, Jun 23)
Last: Cowboy Popup

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(123 - 1:07pm, Jun 23)
Last: Rob_Wood

Page rendered in 0.7301 seconds
46 querie(s) executed