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, July 16, 2018

OTP 2018 July 16: Why Does President Trump Balk At Attending Baseball Games?

As the World Cup finale plays in my living room, it’s seems like the right time to reflect on “America’s pastime” – baseball – and its curious standing these days.

The sport gets it close-up on Tuesday night, when the Major-League All-Star Game is played in the nation’s capital. President Trump is not expected to be attendance, though he easily could zip over to the festivities upon his return from his meeting with Vladimir Putin.

Dating back to William Howard Taft in 1910, every president has done the season’s ceremonial first pitch at least once. So far, Trump’s twice declined to participate in that ritual.

(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: July 16, 2018 at 10:24 AM | 1502 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 13 of 16 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›
   1201. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 02:51 PM (#5713216)
tshipman, #1183:
So this is a thing:
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, secretly recorded a conversation with Mr. Trump two months before the presidential election in which they discussed payments to a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, according to lawyers and others familiar with the recording.

Rudy Giuliani:
“Nothing in that conversation suggests that [Trump] had any knowledge of it in advance. In the big scheme of things, it’s powerful exculpatory evidence.” And you can always trust Rudy.

Reportedly, just the fact that the content of the tape is known means that it's already been determined to be evidence of a crime, and thus not subject to attorney-client privilege. Which is why the Cohen prosecutors shared it with Giuliani.

Is this correct, all you election violations/wire fraud/bank fraud/conspiracy lawyers taking a quick unbillable BTF break from your election violations/wire fraud/bank fraud/conspiracy lawyering?
   1202. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 20, 2018 at 02:57 PM (#5713220)
I would hate to see impeachment become a political game.


But impeachment is a political lever. From the very constitutional framers who spelled it out and explicitly said as much, to the courts who have unequivocally stated it is a political question... it is.

Of course - I'm not ignoring the "game" aspect... and on that, I agree. It should not be a purely political maneuver to be used by a split government.

FTR - I opposed lefty calls for W's impeachment in the 2007-2008 range. He made shitty calls. He was a shitty President. But - there were neither provable lawbreaking with his direct fingerprints or a Trump-level inherent unfitness or ludicrousness to him being in office.

Hamilton clearly and unequivocally stated it... the nation is not expected to suffer an idiot for his entire term just because there's no obvious law he has broken. Franklin put it more plainly in that a looser remedy of impeachment sure as hell beat the alternatives.

There are practical realities that impeachment tomorrow doesn't make sense.

But beyond tomorrow?

Neither the nation nor congress should be operating under the assumption that it needs to pretend it's a court of law, with all the rules of evidence, statutorily explicit charges, etc when the constitution and history clearly carved it out as something different... by design.

The President is granted extraordinary and singular carve-out from criminal penalty while in office. In exchange for this rarefied air of immunity from criminal penalty, there is a remedy prescribed aside from the normal process as well.

One cannot exist as a meaningful rule without acceptance of the counter under the same.

People should not need to think too deeply about the inherent logic of this. The constitutional authority - and responsibility - must be a package deal.

The constitutional framers designed a chief executive office that could act with the authority of the monarchs he would deal with - but they clearly and undeniably did not intend it to work like a "monarch in four year chunks".
   1203. Srul Itza Posted: July 20, 2018 at 03:31 PM (#5713238)
The old joke is:

An old man is driving down the highway when he gets a frantic call on his cell phone from his wife. "Steve, be careful!" she yells, "I saw on the news that there's a maniac driving the wrong way on the highway and causing accidents!" "Not a maniac," he responds. "Hundreds of them!"


Or this saying

   1204. Srul Itza Posted: July 20, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5713239)
The thing is, we know FLTB is trolling, and while I used to credit Ray as being sincere, I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that he doesn't know exactly what he's doing.


My God. It has been painfully obvious since no later than "catcher's throwing lane".

   1205. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5713242)
#1201:
Is this correct, all you election violations/wire fraud/bank fraud/conspiracy lawyers taking a quick unbillable BTF break from your election violations/wire fraud/bank fraud/conspiracy lawyering?


Not "election" violations... "campaign violations," of course. Though Trump has been such a trailblazer in the field of opaque lawbreaking that it's possible I'm not right about saying it wrong.
   1206. zenbitz Posted: July 20, 2018 at 03:39 PM (#5713245)

But I don't think a rational person has to wait for a heinous crime in order to be in favor of impeachment. Trump has manifestly demonstrated unfitness for office and should be removed.


What I am in favor of isnt relevant. Yeah i wish he wasnt president. Sure hes an incompetent blustering moron. But barring proof of brazen corruption, he's not getting impeached so whatever.
   1207. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 20, 2018 at 03:41 PM (#5713247)
Clapper's got a frog in his finger, so he asked me to pass on this latest Rasmussen poll. First time that Trump's net approval rating has sunk this low (-11%) from Clapper's favorite pollster since January 30th. And the Orangeman's net "Strongly Approve / Strongly Disapprove" number is now -14%.

But here's a consolation for Trump's favorite BTF surrogate: A local TV station/Survey USA Georgia gubernatorial poll has both Trump-loving Republicans ahead of an African American female Democratic opponent----by 2% each.
   1208. zenbitz Posted: July 20, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5713249)
Would a modern senate even convict Nixon?
   1209. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5713257)
Would a modern senate even convict Nixon?

Sure it would. It'd even convict Trump if his approval numbers got down to Nixon's final 24%. At that point even Mitch might desert him, though probably not Clapper. JE would have to wait to get the signal from Bibi before committing himself one way or the other.
   1210. OCF Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:02 PM (#5713258)
Would a modern senate even convict Nixon?

I don't think so. There were multiple axes of difference then; liberal-conservative wasn't the same as Democrat-Republican. Sam Ervin was a Democrat; if you want to imagine someone with Ervin-like politics now, he'd be a Republican, and he'd block any realistic investigation of the president.
   1211. DavidFoss Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5713262)
Sam Ervin was a Democrat; if you want to imagine someone with Ervin-like politics now, he'd be a Republican

Richard Burr actually has Ervin's seat!

Ervin's committee was a special committee specifically for Watergate. He himself sponsored its creation and the Senate approved 77-0. I don't see a way to list the 23 abstentions. Different times.
   1212. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:33 PM (#5713280)
DavidFoss, #1211:
Ervin's committee was a special committee specifically for Watergate. He himself sponsored its creation and the Senate approved 77-0. I don't see a way to list the 23 abstentions.


Don't say I never did nothin' for ya.

The 23 Senators who abstained from voting:

John Sparkman (D-AL)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Barry Goldwater (D-AZ)
Peter Dominick (R-CO)
Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Hiram Fong (D-HI)
Frank Church (D-ID)
Birch Bayh (D-IN)
James Pearson (R-KS)
John Johnston (D-LA)
Charles Mathias (R-MD)
Edward Brooke (R-MA)
Walter Mondale (D-MN)
James Eastland (D-MS)
James Stennis (D-MS)
Howard Cannon (D-NV)
Joseph Montoya (D-NM)
William Saxbe (R-OH)
Robert Packwood (R-OR)
Strom Thurmond (R-SC)
Robert Stafford (R-VT)
Warren Magnuson (D-WA)

Plenty of familiar, and perhaps even surprising names in there.

Some still-remembered Republicans who voted "yes" to establish the Watergate Committee included Bob Dole, Jesse Helms, Lowell Weicker, Howard Baker, Robert Taft, John Tower and Jacob Javits.

The "yes" voting percentage was essentially the same for both parties: 33 of 42 Republicans, and 42 of 56 Democrats.
   1213. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:33 PM (#5713282)
For all the brew-ha-ha about WWI, about 15000 Americans died in the War of 1812 from a population of ~10 million, about 110k Americans died in WWI from a population of 90 million - it's not like War was invented in the 1900s.

FTR:

Total number of deaths in warfare,** 1876 - 1913: 2,000,000

Total number of deaths in warfare, 1914 - 1945: 75,000,000

Total number of deaths in warfare, 1876 - 1945: 77,000,000

Total number of deaths in warfare, 1946 - 2018: 22,000,000


This is NOT to say that there weren't worse periods prior to 1876-1945. There were, especially when you consider the relative populations. You can look them up for yourself at the link I provided. But it does throw a bit of cold water on the idea that life was one big improvement from 1876 to 1945, as well as emphasizing the point of how much better the world has become since the end of World War II.

** All numbers are geometric mean estimates, and all numbers are rounded down to nearest million.
   1214. DavidFoss Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:39 PM (#5713287)
Thanks 1212.
   1215. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5713289)
It'd even convict Trump if his approval numbers got down to Nixon's final 24%.


But what would it take for Trump's approval numbers to get down to 24%? We're basically to the same point out from Watergate when Nixon resigned (August 1974) and Trump's approval ratings are sitting stubbornly at 40%.

I don't think so. There were multiple axes of difference then; liberal-conservative wasn't the same as Democrat-Republican.


And I think this is why. Look at Alabama: given a choice between a pedophile with a crazy worldview and a moderate Democrat, almost half of the population decided, "Well, sure he's wack-a-doodle and I wouldn't let him get within 100 yards of my teenage daughter, but at least he's pro-life!"

And with Trump, I think the additional problem is that the Republican Party is re-sorting around him. As a relative moderate myself, I've been baffled by why Republicans wouldn't be willing to bite the bullet and take a President Pence as he's basically a classic run-of-the-mill Republican. But I think my view of what it means to be a "classic run-of-the-mill Republican" isn't right anymore. Trump alienated a chunk of the classic Republican coalition (your libertarian, free-trade, pro-immigration folks - of which I consider myself one) and replaced them with nationalists - see the poll on the previous page suggesting 3/4 of Republicans approve of Trump's tariffs; this is a stunning reversal from 20-30 years ago when free trade was a bedrock conservative principle - and Pence probably isn't as acceptable to those folks as Trump is.
   1216. tshipman Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:43 PM (#5713290)
But what would it take for Trump's approval numbers to get down to 24%? We're basically to the same point out from Watergate when Nixon resigned (August 1974) and Trump's approval ratings are sitting stubbornly at 40%.


Well, the Mueller report would have to come back with findings that Trump did collude with Russia, and there would have to be indictments of several key players.

That would pretty effectively do it, I would have to imagine.
   1217. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 20, 2018 at 04:46 PM (#5713291)
I don't think so. There were multiple axes of difference then; liberal-conservative wasn't the same as Democrat-Republican. Sam Ervin was a Democrat; if you want to imagine someone with Ervin-like politics now, he'd be a Republican, and he'd block any realistic investigation of the president.

Ervin was a relatively moderate Dixiecrat, more along the lines of a Fulbright than an Eastland or a Thurmond.** It's hard to make any direct comparisons between 1974 and 2018, but if he were a Republican now I suspect he'd be more like a Flake or a McCain, and I don't think he'd be defending Trump. But obviously there's no way of proving this.

** Though he was one of the leading opponents of Thurgood Marshall's nomination to the Supreme Court, along with the then-Republican Thurmond.
   1218. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 20, 2018 at 05:06 PM (#5713294)
Hiram Fong (D-HI)
. . .
Barry Goldwater (D-AZ)

Stealing Senate seats are we now?
   1219. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 20, 2018 at 05:14 PM (#5713297)
Though he was one of the leading opponents of Thurgood Marshall's nomination to the Supreme Court, along with the then-Republican Thurmond.

Marshall was confirmed by a vote of 69-11, with 10 of the negative votes coming from Democrats.
   1220. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 05:21 PM (#5713304)
Of the list in #1212, Joe Biden sticks out because the Watergate Committee vote came about 7 weeks after half his family was killed in a horrific car crash. I wonder whether he purposely abstained, or if he wasn't physically present.
   1221. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 05:24 PM (#5713306)
No, no, I meant the OTHER Barry Goldwater. Loved taxes and Chairman Mao.
   1222. BrianBrianson Posted: July 20, 2018 at 05:25 PM (#5713307)
This is NOT to say that there weren't worse periods prior to 1876-1945. There were, especially when you consider the relative populations. You can look them up for yourself at the link I provided. But it does throw a bit of cold water on the idea that life was one big improvement from 1876 to 1945, as well as emphasizing the point of how much better the world has become since the end of World War II.


I used American numbers is specific response to a question about Americans. 1876-1913 was not some picnic - all the fun of the Congo Free State happens then. The first go at slaughtering all the Armenians.

Sure, as one draws the timeframes shorter and shorter, there are instances where the quality of life globally isn't monotonically increasing. But the quality of life has been skyrocketing at a increasing pace since ~1800, with only minor setbacks that've always been clawed back within a few years.
   1223. tshipman Posted: July 20, 2018 at 05:44 PM (#5713311)
Sure, as one draws the timeframes shorter and shorter, there are instances where the quality of life globally isn't monotonically increasing. But the quality of life has been skyrocketing at a increasing pace since ~1800, with only minor setbacks that've always been clawed back within a few years.


Don't you have to account for China and India here?

They've always been a large % of world population, and QoL (particularly in China) has been highly variable over these time frames.

Per Riley (2005), Asia didn't begin their health transition until the 1870's-1890's, some 100 years later than Europe. As late as 1913, he estimates the average life expectancy in Asia at 28.1. Average life expectancy in China had only increased to 40 by 1950, and dipped by 1960 due to the Great Leap Forward.
   1224. Traderdave Posted: July 20, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5713315)
Marshall was confirmed by a vote of 69-11, with 10 of the negative votes coming from Democrats.


And every one of the Democrats would be a Republican today.
   1225. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 20, 2018 at 06:01 PM (#5713319)
Marshall was confirmed by a vote of 69-11, with 10 of the negative votes coming from Democrats.

And every one of the Democrats would be a Republican today.

Either that, or they would've modified their racial views along with the times. And then been beaten by Republicans who hadn't, as Fulbright and Gore were after they'd voted to confirm Marshall.
   1226. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 06:05 PM (#5713320)
Fake CNN:
Trump team worries: Could Helsinki disaster strengthen Mueller's hand?

Donald Trump's legal team and close allies are increasingly concerned that the President's widely panned performance standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this week could strengthen the hand of special counsel Robert Mueller at a critical time.

The caution is a notable change in tone from just before the summit, when the President's team seemed bolstered by a political climate that married declining public support for Mueller's probe with an inspector general report that raised significant questions about the conduct of the FBI.

But one source with knowledge of legal team thinking says it's now legitimate to fear that Trump's erratic behavior at the Helsinki summit, coupled with last week's indictments of 12 Russian intelligence officers, could be an inflection point in the whole process -- one that could potentially make Trump less sympathetic and conceivably embolden Mueller.

..................All of this comes at a time when Trump's attorneys are still in negotiations about a potential presidential interview with the special counsel..............Sources familiar with discussions tell CNN that while the two sides are communicating, there has been little to no progress on the negotiations recently. One of the sources said the ball is largely in Mueller's court, but adds that everything seems largely on the shelf at this point.

......................Another source familiar with the Trump legal discussions told CNN that in the face of this lack of progress, there is also some concern that Mueller could be preparing a subpoena. Previously, Trump's attorneys have believed that Mueller does not want to get into a protracted legal fight over a subpoena, but now no one seems to know what to anticipate.


As I saw on Twitter yesterday, "I like presidents who don't get captured by the enemy."
   1227. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 06:06 PM (#5713322)
Oliver Darcy on the Trump-Cohen beauty pageant hush money payout tape, via Twitter:
Via @DanaBashCNN @GloriaBorger: When informed about the tape, the president said, “I can’t believe Michael would do this with me,” according to a source familiar with the tapes.
and
More, via @DanaBashCNN @GloriaBorger: Michael Cohen had other recordings of Trump in his records seized by FBI, per Rudy Giuliani & a source w/knowledge of Cohen's tapes. “Definitely all kinds of tapes out there,” one of the sources said.
   1228. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: July 20, 2018 at 06:31 PM (#5713331)
I wonder if any of those tapes will reveal that Trump is a lying scumbag. That would change EVERYTHING!
   1229. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 20, 2018 at 06:38 PM (#5713333)
Via @DanaBashCNN @GloriaBorger: When informed about the tape, the president said, “I can’t believe Michael would do this with me,” according to a source familiar with the tapes.
As someone else pointed out, (1) that actual phrasing sounds nothing like Trump's voice, and (2) the statement is ludicrous. Is there a single person who is surprised that Cohen did this?
   1230. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 20, 2018 at 06:51 PM (#5713335)
Marshall was confirmed by a vote of 69-11, with 10 of the negative votes coming from Democrats.

And every one of the Democrats would be a Republican today.

Republican Senators haven't had a problem confirming black Supreme Court Justices. We see the the pattern even more starkly on the vote for the next black Supreme Court nominee, with Republican Senators voting 41-2 to confirm, while Democrats were 46-11 against. Perhaps Senate Democrats will do better on the third such nominee?
   1231. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:22 PM (#5713340)
That was the single most racist thing to happen in what I'd mistakenly thought was still America other than UPN cancelling "Moesha."
   1232. perros Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:23 PM (#5713341)
I worked with the IC for over 30 years and this is simply not true. Almost all the people are "good people". Yes they are more likely to be conservative than the general population and yes, there are some right wing nuts jobs, but they are not a bunch of white nationalists trying to destroy this country. I know exponentially more IC people than you, including multiple dozens of senior executives who actually make the decisions and this isn't even close to accurate.


How many are white men like yourself, of similar background, education, and experience?

I think I acknowledged them as an urbane, educated lot, and I don't doubt most work with the best of intentions. But historically, institutionally, the work to uphold a world order that solely serves the class interests of the ruling elite of the US, and if the black and brown populations of the world get run overin tbe process, well, that's just a routine day at the office.

Their work does not serve democracy in ends nor means, they do notmake the country or the world safer, nor does any of the secret stuff beyond all us little people to know.

How do you square extraordinary rendition, torture, assassination, drone strikes, etc. with being good people? Particularly when it has been shown that many so targeted were mistakenly taken out?
   1233. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:34 PM (#5713345)
Cops think they’re good people. ICE Agents think they’re good people. The Nazis thought they were good people.

We shouldn’t place much stock in their opinions. Ya need distance.
   1234. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:39 PM (#5713347)
Cops think they’re good people. ICE Agents think they’re good people. The Nazis thought they were good people.


And they all mistakenly think they're not afflicted with TDS.
   1235. Srul Itza Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:45 PM (#5713348)
GOP announced it will hold its 2020 Presidential Convention in Charlotte.

Because they would not want anyone to forget that there are some very fine people on both sides.

From Bull Horns to Dog Whistles, back to Bull Horns
   1236. perros Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:52 PM (#5713350)
Particularly when it has been shown that many so targeted were mistakenly taken out?


See, even I buy into the narrative that these deaths are a mistake rather than part of the SOP.
   1237. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:56 PM (#5713353)
Manufactured consent, 1236. They’re really good at it!
   1238. perros Posted: July 20, 2018 at 07:59 PM (#5713355)
   1239. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: July 20, 2018 at 08:04 PM (#5713356)
See, even I buy into the narrative that these deaths are a mistake rather than part of the SOP.


Well, I'm sure SOP would rather not kill civilians and innocents, after all, compensation is a ##### ...


August 29th, 2012, a small town in eastern Yemen called Khashamir.

A local cleric named Salem bin Ali Jaber waits beneath a palm tree. The bold imam is known around the country for his oratory denouncing terrorism. After evening prayer, he had been told that three frightening men had come to town looking for him, just days after he’d preached against Al Qaeda.

Jaber is concerned enough about meeting with them that he brings his nephew, a local policeman named Waleed bin Ali Jaber, for protection.

After the three imposing youths arrive, the group stands beneath the palm tree, poised for confrontation. But at exactly the moment the “meeting” was to have begun, an American drone ostensibly targeting the three young men drops Hellfire missiles on the whole group. Everyone is incinerated, including both Jabers.

Jaber’s brother-in-law, Faisal bin Ali Jaber, was on a rooftop that evening. Until he saw the flash in the distance, it had been a happy night, a party for his son’s wedding.

“I saw the lightning in the sky,” he recalls through a translator. “Then I heard the missile, and we all saw the explosion.”

When Faisal raced to the site, he discovered what was left of his brother-in-law – the bodies were in bits – and knew immediately he’d been killed by the Americans.

“Only American drones operate at night,” he says.

But he couldn’t understand why his brother had died. Salem bin Ali Jaber was not just an opponent of terrorism, but traveled around the country with other imams, speaking particularly to young men he felt might otherwise be targeted for recruitment. He was one of the few prominent Yemenis willing to publicly oppose Al Qaeda.

“They were fighting the same battle,” Faisal says, of his brother-in-law and the U.S. “They were fighting the same enemy.”

In July 2014, two years after the Jabers were killed, an official from the Yemeni National Security Bureau met with a member of Faisal’s family and handed over a plastic bag with $100,000 in cash, saying it came from the U.S. (though the security official later denied U.S. involvement).

“Condolence or other ex gratia payments … may be available for those injured and the families of those killed,” a White House National Security Official told Reuters in 2014. This is our Beavis and Butt-head version of an apology for killing innocents: Here’s, like, some money and stuff.

The Jaber family wasn’t mollified by their “condolence payment.” In fact, when Faisal learned more about the drone program and how it worked, he was horrified.

One thing that particularly troubled him was that Americans had begun to remove the human element from the assassination process. One of the few things known about the Kill List is that it’s compiled in part by algorithm.

In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.”

According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.”

“When I learned about signature strikes, that was incredible,” Faisal says. “If the criteria is being armed or having a beard – that is everyone in Yemen.”


Killing by algorithm ... what could go wrong?

Link

The whole thing is worth a (depressing) read.
   1240. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: July 20, 2018 at 09:04 PM (#5713370)
How many are white men like yourself, of similar background, education, and experience?


The IC is fairly diverse, so this isn't a case of getting a distorted view by dealing with all white males. There are a lot of women and minorities, including in senior management positions.

I think I acknowledged them as an urbane, educated lot, and I don't doubt most work with the best of intentions. But historically, institutionally, the work to uphold a world order that solely serves the class interests of the ruling elite of the US, and if the black and brown populations of the world get run overin tbe process, well, that's just a routine day at the office.

Their work does not serve democracy in ends nor means, they do notmake the country or the world safer, nor does any of the secret stuff beyond all us little people to know.

How do you square extraordinary rendition, torture, assassination, drone strikes, etc. with being good people? Particularly when it has been shown that many so targeted were mistakenly taken out?


You are backtracking on the inflammatory language that caused me to respond in the first place. As a reminder, this is what you said before:

they are a bunch of white nationalists, ... These secret police are not democrats in any way, shape, or form.


I took objection to your characterization of many/most IC personnel as white nationalists. I know from years of experience that this just isn't true.

As I said in my original reply, there is valid criticism of the IC. You named some of them. Of course the IC includes 17 different departments and agencies. Are they all evil? How does NGIA or NRO threaten democracy? Do State, Energy and Treasury Intel make the world less safe? Is Coast Guard Intel secret police? The CIA is the primary IC element responsible for all the activities you criticized. If your objection is with the CIA, why are you grossly attacking all the other agencies and departments in the IC?

You are free to believe that the IC is all bad and doesn't do anything to make the country safer, but to the rationale person, it makes you appear as ill-informed as Trump. By all means, fix the real problems with the IC, but don't destroy the useful things that they do in the process.
   1241. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 20, 2018 at 10:43 PM (#5713380)

GOP announced it will hold its 2020 Presidential Convention in Charlotte.

Because they would not want anyone to forget that there are some very fine people on both sides.
Uh, you know that Charlotte and Charlottesville are different places, like 300 miles apart, right?
   1242. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 20, 2018 at 10:47 PM (#5713382)
You are free to believe that the IC is all bad and doesn't do anything to make the country safer, but to the rationale person, it makes you appear as ill-informed as Trump. By all means, fix the real problems with the IC, but don't destroy the useful things that they do in the process.


yea you gave him more than he deserved. perros is a mile wide and an inch deep.
   1243. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 20, 2018 at 11:06 PM (#5713386)
It's just an unthinking, frothing word they throw out there, and they're too hysterical to even make the "treason can be impeachment" argument.
Is it more or less hysterical than claiming Obama was born in Kenya?

TDS is nothing. Republicans hated Obama so hard, they elected the world's most famous birther. All other claims of hate have to settle for a distant second.
   1244. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:04 AM (#5713398)
Americans are aware of the developments of the Helsinki Summit between President Trump and Russian President Putin: 74% of the public has seen, heard, or read about it. Both Democrats (82%) and Republicans (77%) are closely watching, while Independents (70%) are slightly less interested in following the news.

Half (49%) of Americans agree with former intelligence officials’ assessments that President Trump acted “treasonous” during the Helsinki summit, and just a quarter (27%) disagree. There are sharp partisan divisions here; 80% of Democrats agree, along with 43% of Independents, and one in five (21%) Republicans.


The idea that 74% of Americans could tell you the second thing about the Helsinki Summit is ludicrous. Only those who are political junkies could tell you much of anything about this meeting - and they're already chosen either R or D come hell or high water. The rest of the country is, at most, barely aware that some meeting between Trump and Putin took place. And then they hear the two sides screeching about it and they tune everyone out. This is how one becomes surprised to learn that 63 million people would vote for Trump.

Hell, most Americans barely know who Putin is. If you think that most people are plugged into this socket as you are, think again.
   1245. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:08 AM (#5713399)
I downloaded the actual questions to confirm, the question explicitly includes the word "treasonous": "President Trump's behavior towards Russian President Putin has been described by former members of the U.S. Intelligence Community as 'treasonous.' Do you agree or disagree with that assessment?"

Strongly agree - 34%
Somewhat agree - 14%
Neither agree nor disagree - 12%
Somewhat disagree - 10%
Strongly disagree - 17%

That's stunning. Half of all Americans think that Trump's behavior was treasonous and twice as many strongly agree as strongly disagree. Look, I hate Donald Trump as much as the next guy and think his Helsinki press conference was disgraceful, but even I think "treasonous" is probably a bridge too far. Are there any historical precedents for something like this: one-third to one-half of the population basically think the President of the United States is a traitor?


You're making a good case for the fact that this is derangement.
   1246. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:11 AM (#5713400)
So I see the nightly Ray-cast


I really don't know how you people have time to sit around here and shoot the breeze all day. Don't you folks work?
   1247. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:13 AM (#5713402)
The fact that the sitting "president's" supporters literally have to rules-lawyer their way out of him being guilty of treason outright...


Aside from the entire concept of your complaint here being insane -- Objecting to definitions? Huh? -- no supporters that I've seen have had to "rules-lawyer" their way out of him being guilty of treason. His supporters have basically been (a) laughing at you and (b) laughing at you.

It was Andy who cited the legal definition in 1151. Andy is not a lawyer. In 1140 DavidFoss mentioned that he saw some lawyers discussing it on tv, but no further specifics were provided. You're imagining things.
   1248. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:18 AM (#5713404)
I downloaded the actual questions to confirm, the question explicitly includes the word "treasonous": "President Trump's behavior towards Russian President Putin has been described by former members of the U.S. Intelligence Community as 'treasonous.' Do you agree or disagree with that assessment?"

Push poll.
   1249. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:23 AM (#5713405)
General hint: When you're saying "Contrary to popular opinion, the President did not commit the dictionary definition of treason," you're losing badly.
   1250. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:23 AM (#5713406)
Turley:

No, Mr. President, The Media Is Not The “Real Enemy of the People”

...

Once again, the merits of Trump’s performance are not my concern. Rather the continued reference of journalists as “the enemy” is alarming and unprecedented for a sitting president. Past presidents have criticized the media without ratcheting up the rhetoric in this way. Not only does it undermine our core commitment under the First Amendment to a free press, it actually undermines Trump’s arguments. I agree with his criticism of some coverage as struggling to take the most negative view possible of his actions and policies. Even positive developments are often spinned in a way to denigrate the Administration. While Trump often gives ample reason for negative coverage, there is a pattern of biased reporting in my view. Yet, Trump negates that record by adopting the rhetoric of authoritarian figures in history in denouncing journalists as public enemies.

225px-LeninIronically, it was Vladimir Lenin who denounced democratic leaders as “enemies of the people” and nations from China to Iran to Turkey have used this phrase to fight the free press or free expression.

Helsinki in my view was another self-inflected wounds and justifiably criticized. Trump can disagree with that assessment and highlight the positive outcomes from the summit. However, this country owes a huge debt to journalists who have courageously revealed government abuse and corruption for decades in our system. We have real enemies in this world and our strength is based in no small part to those who report on our government.


I agree that "enemies of the people" is not an appropriate term for the media. I'd go with buffoonish bozoesque clowns.
   1251. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:26 AM (#5713407)
General hint: When you're saying "Contrary to popular opinion, the President did not commit the dictionary definition of treason," you're losing badly.


It's a laugh - speaking of bozos - you think this is popular opinion.
   1252. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:28 AM (#5713408)
Says the oddly agitated man who claims to view politics as sheer entertainment.
   1253. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:29 AM (#5713409)
Solomon:

...

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

...

But Team Strzok kept pushing [the dossier] through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.
   1254. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:32 AM (#5713413)
Trump is a raving beast. He doesn't have to commit a heinous crime. Indeed none is required for impeachment.

This is crazy. Get organized for 2020 and vote him out.


What are the Democrats running on?
   1255. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:36 AM (#5713414)
That's stunning. Half of all Americans think that Trump's behavior was treasonous and twice as many strongly agree as strongly disagree. Look, I hate Donald Trump as much as the next guy and think his Helsinki press conference was disgraceful, but even I think "treasonous" is probably a bridge too far.

I think it's rather a big stretch to say that the press conference itself was treasonous. (Unpatriotic, sure. But not treasonous.) Rather, his dealings with Russia verge on treasonous, and the press conference was an exemplar.


Simply no evidence that his "dealings with Russia verge on treasonous." You're making things up, David.
   1256. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:40 AM (#5713415)
You need to take "Donald Trump is a traitor" seriously, but not literally.
   1257. greenback made it work, honey Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:45 AM (#5713417)
Says the oddly agitated man who claims to view politics as sheer entertainment.

I don't see much agitation. The macro is behaving as it typically does: A Turley post, a few 'ludicrous'/'ridiculous'/'laughable'/'laughing at you' assertions, a 'nobody cares' post, and a Strzok post. The test subjects don't seem to be responding however, so the macro will need to be tweaked over the weekend.
   1258. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:46 AM (#5713418)

TDS is nothing. Republicans hated Obama so hard, they elected the world's most famous birther.


Your point might be non-ludicrous if they had elected McCain or Romney.

Trump wasn't even running against Obama.
   1259. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:57 AM (#5713422)
Trump wasn't even running against Obama.
LOL.
   1260. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:27 AM (#5713427)
This is crazy. Get organized for 2020 and vote him out.


What are the Democrats running on?

Their big campaign slogan seems to be "A former nember of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign failed to properly complete his SF86 form regarding business meetings he'd had with Mordovian senator Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak."

It's polling very well with the working class.
   1261. Zonk was SHOCKED by #6! Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:46 AM (#5713430)
   1262. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 02:11 AM (#5713432)
A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.
Jesus, there is no limits to the hackery Ray will engage in. Strzok says he has a "gut sense," and Ray turns that into "Strzok 'knew all along.'"

(I know, Ray will claim that it's not his words, which is exactly as convincing as always.)
   1263. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 02:12 AM (#5713433)
Simply no evidence that his "dealings with Russia verge on treasonous."
You mean, other than the dead body?
   1264. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:50 AM (#5713436)
TDS is nothing. Republicans hated Obama so hard, they elected the world's most famous birther.


Let’s not sell the fat, bald, narcissistic con-man short, he’s also the worlds most famous anti-vaxxer, and possibly the world’s most famous climate change denialist. Basically he hates evidence-based conclusions wherever he finds them, so I can understand why he’s popular with suckers and dopes who are are sick of seeing their own ignorance held against them.
   1265. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: July 21, 2018 at 08:47 AM (#5713440)
It's polling very well with the working class.


Indeed.
The main takeaway from that link is that Bryce Harper has a lower unfavorable rating that Aaron Judge and Kris Bryant, and the same as Mike Trout. We truly are a nation of stupids.
   1266. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 21, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5713451)
The leader of the Republican Party:
Inconceivable that the government would break into a lawyer’s office (early in the morning) - almost unheard of. Even more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client - totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!

Normal stuff to say.
   1267. tshipman Posted: July 21, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5713458)
Their big campaign slogan seems to be "A former nember of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign failed to properly complete his SF86 form regarding business meetings he'd had with Mordovian senator Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak."

It's polling very well with the working class.


Are you for real with this ####, Davo?

The out of power party almost never has a campaign beyond checks and balances. And you know what? It works. What was in the D campaign platform in 2006? No one remembers. They just remember that they were sick of W.

In 2020, the party is likely to be campaigning on Medicare for All and no treason with Russia. Like every election before it, the results will likely be dependent on the state of the economy and whether or not we are at war.
   1268. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:28 PM (#5713462)
1261– indeed. Workers have very strong feelings about Natalia Vladimirovna Veselnitskaya and the Magnitsky Act.
   1269. McCoy Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:39 PM (#5713463)
several wrong actors in this but thank good we have conceal laws and and stand your ground laws or else this could have spiraled out of control.
   1270. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:43 PM (#5713464)
A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.


Jesus, there is no limits to the hackery Ray will engage in. Strzok says he has a "gut sense," and Ray turns that into "Strzok 'knew all along.'"

(I know, Ray will claim that it's not his words, which is exactly as convincing as always.)


Speaking of hackery...

It is perhaps fair -- though not always accurate -- to assume that one broadly agrees with the thrust of something that one quotes without comment. (Although often what we discuss here is interpretations of facts and inferences drawn from facts, and so presenting an interpretation or inference that is opposite from the "conventional wisdom" is productive even if one doesn't sign on completely.)

What is NOT fair, however, is to assume that one agrees with each and every point made in something one links to. What is also not fair is to claim that one signed on to a conclusion that was not bolded. In this case I bolded two portions of the Solomon piece -- neither of which being the conclusion that David trumpeted. I bolded:

1: ...Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

I also bolded:

2: Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”


David then claims that "Ray turned it into" something that Ray didn't bold. Ray didn't comment at all, but Ray DID comment implicitly by bolding the portions Ray thought were most interesting. The main point being that one of the closest people on the planet to this probe had a "gut sense" at the beginning that there was "no big there there." And this person in considering whether this probe might lead to impeachment said "You and I both know the odds are nothing." That is a powerful point, which is why you got your back up when you saw it.

In fact as you well know from my comments I know full well -- and have said so many times -- that the FBI can investigate whatever they damned well please. It is not illegal to do so (as long as it's within the 4th Amendment, etc.) although as policy the FBI shouldn't be, say, engaging in personal vendettas when they open investigations. So I was not making any point about an "improper" investigation. I was merely making the general point that *STRZOK* thought at the beginning that there was nothing there. I was not signing on to Solomon's conclusion that I didn't bold, which was nonsensical because one can't possibly "know all along" that evidence is going to "lead to nothing."
   1271. perros Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:54 PM (#5713465)
Obviously criminal activity crosses the line, but otherwise where is the line of attorney-client privilege with regard to a government investigation?

Just asking for a friend.
   1272. perros Posted: July 21, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5713468)
Reportedly, just the fact that the content of the tape is known means that it's already been determined to be evidence of a crime, and thus not subject to attorney-client privilege. Which is why the Cohen prosecutors shared it with Giuliani.


I wouldn't hire Rudy Giuliani to be my latex salesman, but it's interesting that Trump hired a former federal prosecutor.
   1273. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5713470)
In 2020, the party is likely to be campaigning on Medicare for All and no treason with Russia.


Lol as to the latter point.

The "high-browed" discussion thus far has been:

"Trump had a meeting with Putin."

"BUT PUTIN'S A KILLER! HE HAS MURDERED JOURNALISTS AND OPPOSITION LEADERS!!!!"

"I know, but this is diplomacy. US presidents have consistently met with unsavory heads of state."

"BUT PUTIN IS A WAR CRIMINAL AND A MURDERER!! HE BOMBED TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN MOSCOW!! TRUMP SHOULD HAVE CALLED HIM OUT ON THIS DURING THE TELEVISED MEETING!!"

"That's really not how this works. A US president can't just go in there and slap the cuffs on him."

"BUT PUTIN RESTARTED THE SECOND CHECHEN WAR! HE HAS AIDED TERRORISTS IN THE UKRAINE!!

"Right, but Trump has no power to change the past. And to change the future requires time and productive diplomatic relations as an alternative to war."

"BUT PUTIN SHOT DOWN A MALAYSIAN AIRLINES FLIGHT KILLING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE! TRUMP SHOULD HAVE CALLED HIM A MURDERER RIGHT TO HIS FACE AND WITH THE CAMERAS ROLLING!!!!!!!!!"

"Again, that's not a productive means to achieving successful ends. It's not how US presidents typically handle these things, for good reason."

"WHAT DOES PUTIN HAVE ON TRUMP???!!?!?!!!!!! HE MUST HAVE SOMETHING BIG!!!!"

"Anything's possible, but Trump's usual m.o. is to shake the box in different ways from standard US presidents. Trump typically tries to gain someone's trust so that he can lead the person."

"TRAITOR TRAITOR!!!! TREASON TREASON!!!!"

"I'm not really sure you're rationally analyzing these events. Maybe take a break from this for a little while?"

"YOU'RE A COCKHOLSTER!!!! TRUMPHOLSTER COCKHOLSTER!!!!"

<backs away slowly>

--

I mean, sure, run on "no treason with Russia" if you will. Go for it. The above is what the conversation looks like to sane people.
   1274. tshipman Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5713471)
David then claims that "Ray turned it into" something that Ray didn't bold. Ray didn't comment at all, but Ray DID comment implicitly by bolding the portions Ray thought were most interesting. The main point being that one of the closest people on the planet to this probe had a "gut sense" at the beginning that there was "no big there there." And this person in considering whether this probe might lead to impeachment said "You and I both know the odds are nothing." That is a powerful point, which is why you got your back up when you saw it.

In fact as you well know from my comments I know full well -- and have said so many times -- that the FBI can investigate whatever they damned well please. It is not illegal to do so (as long as it's within the 4th Amendment, etc.) although as policy the FBI shouldn't be, say, engaging in personal vendettas when they open investigations. So I was not making any point about an "improper" investigation. I was merely making the general point that *STRZOK* thought at the beginning that there was nothing there. I was not signing on to Solomon's conclusion that I didn't bold, which was nonsensical because one can't possibly "know all along" that evidence is going to "lead to nothing."


Who gives a ####?

Like honestly, who gives a flying #### what "gut sense" some guy who wasn't in charge of the investigation had? Do we convict based off law enforcement first impressions in our legal system?

What a silly, bizarre point to keep returning back to. No one cares what some guy thought about the likelihood of some kind of collusion case in 2016. What we care about is what can be proven. Gut senses and first impressions don't mean anything in a court of law.
   1275. Morty Causa Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:31 PM (#5713476)
In fact as you well know from my comments I know full well -- and have said so many times -- that the FBI can investigate whatever they damned well please.

So can the local, country, and state police. We have our recourse, just as we do against the FBI. And, satisfactory-wise, that has its pluses and minuses, just like with the FBI.

EDIT: You may have noticed that the current President availed himself or one of those recourses when he didn't like what the FBI and its director were doing.
   1276. perros Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:40 PM (#5713478)
You are backtracking on the inflammatory language that caused me to respond in the first place.


It was snark based upon Davo's surprise that Michael Schuer turns out to be a raving white nationalist. Also note that my phrasing was a parody of Trump's denuciation of Mexicans. I've posted before that most of the CIA -- let alone the rest of the IC -- are bureaucrats, analysts, etc. who are not unlike office folks everywhere, and who have nothing directly to do the crimes I mention. But I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the higher echelons of the IC, including military command and the FBI, are overwhelmingly white and male and of a nationalist bent.

I do have strong objection to the overall apparatus, it's democratic accountability, the black budgets, the trillions unaudited and unaccounted for, and the massive network of affiliated private companies that are even less accountable, and all largely hidden. The fact that it undertakes massive surveillance of the entire US population -- something that James Clapper lied to Congress about, and that it shares unredacted with some foreign governments, should scare the #### out of people.

Most scary of all, as related to the drone program revelations, is that there cannot be personal accountability for the slaughter of innocents. The interlocking system is so massive that command and control is an illusion. Well, excepting the President who could unleash a nuclear first strike for no other reason than post-midnight indigestion.

That some of its members pass around cartoons of Michelle Obama as an orangutang is the least of out worries. Anyway, I appreciate you coming out of the shadows to challenge my ignorance regarding anonymous public servants. They're largely beside the point and should not be classified as white nationalists no matter how many non-white foreign civilians CIA targets for extermination.
   1277. tshipman Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:42 PM (#5713479)
Lol as to the latter point.

The "high-browed" discussion thus far has been:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
   1278. -- Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:45 PM (#5713481)
In 2020, the party is likely to be campaigning on Medicare for All and no treason with Russia.


LOL.
   1279. perros Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:51 PM (#5713483)
yea you gave him more than he deserved. perros is a mile wide and an inch deep.


Conceding that I am profoundly ignorant about many, many things, how much credit should we give your breadth and depth of knowledge? Maybe I'm wrong, but you appear completely ignorant of the historical malfeasance of CIA and FBI. I suppose it's pointless to argue with people who think killing millions of civilians is no big deal when it's in the past or on the other side of the globe. If I am cynical about the American future, it is in large part due to dismissals like yours.
   1280. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:53 PM (#5713484)
Imagine shitting out what Ray has on this page and thinking you’re the sane one
   1281. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 02:00 PM (#5713488)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Derangement_Syndrome
   1282. perros Posted: July 21, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5713489)
In news bound to warm the cockles of Andy's heart, Ecuador is apparently ready to boot Julian Assange from it's London embassy and into the loving arms of Theresa May's regime.
   1283. perros Posted: July 21, 2018 at 02:09 PM (#5713492)
In 2020, the party is likely to be campaigning on Medicare for All and no treason with Russia.



USA! USA! USA!
   1284. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 21, 2018 at 02:21 PM (#5713498)

Like honestly, who gives a flying #### what "gut sense" some guy who wasn't in charge of the investigation had? Do we convict based off law enforcement first impressions in our legal system?

Based on what they've seen of Trump's words and deeds to date, I'd bet that by now the great majority of intelligence officials** have a "gut sense" that Trump is Putin's boy toy, and that the Russians have enough dirt on him to keep him that way.

** Both American and Russian
   1285. Morty Causa Posted: July 21, 2018 at 02:21 PM (#5713499)
Well, there was a Roosevelt Derangement Syndrome (both Roosevelts), and a Kennedy/Nixon/Carter/Reagan/Clinton (definitely)/Obama syndromes. I think there was even a Lincoln DS. Hey, there was even an Al Gore (remember him?) syndrome. I'm not clear on how this advances any issue substantively, though. It just a form of crying "Wolf! Wolf", and avoiding substantive discussion. Tracking exactly the facile DS accusation.
   1286. Shredder Posted: July 21, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5713501)
Like honestly, who gives a flying #### what "gut sense" some guy who wasn't in charge of the investigation had? Do we convict based off law enforcement first impressions in our legal system?
It's selective interpreting. They don't understand how stupid it makes them look. These are the same idiots who, with regard to Flynn, hear the FBI say "He didn't appear to be lying", and interpret it to mean "The FBI said he didn't lie". Some of you guys who are good at poker really need to get Ray, Jason, and their money to the same table.
   1287. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 21, 2018 at 02:56 PM (#5713511)
Ray, #1273:
The above is what the conversation looks like to sane people.


Sane people generally don't hear imaginary ALL-CAPS conversations shouting inside their heads.
   1288. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 21, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5713513)
1273. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5713470)
In 2020, the party is likely to be campaigning on Medicare for All and no treason with Russia.


Lol as to the latter point.

The "high-browed" discussion thus far has been:

"Trump had a meeting with Putin."

"BUT PUTIN'S A KILLER! HE HAS MURDERED JOURNALISTS AND OPPOSITION LEADERS!!!!"

"I know, but this is diplomacy. US presidents have consistently met with unsavory heads of state."

"BUT PUTIN IS A WAR CRIMINAL AND A MURDERER!! HE BOMBED TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN MOSCOW!! TRUMP SHOULD HAVE CALLED HIM OUT ON THIS DURING THE TELEVISED MEETING!!"

"That's really not how this works. A US president can't just go in there and slap the cuffs on him."

"BUT PUTIN RESTARTED THE SECOND CHECHEN WAR! HE HAS AIDED TERRORISTS IN THE UKRAINE!!

"Right, but Trump has no power to change the past. And to change the future requires time and productive diplomatic relations as an alternative to war."

"BUT PUTIN SHOT DOWN A MALAYSIAN AIRLINES FLIGHT KILLING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE! TRUMP SHOULD HAVE CALLED HIM A MURDERER RIGHT TO HIS FACE AND WITH THE CAMERAS ROLLING!!!!!!!!!"

"Again, that's not a productive means to achieving successful ends. It's not how US presidents typically handle these things, for good reason."

"WHAT DOES PUTIN HAVE ON TRUMP???!!?!?!!!!!! HE MUST HAVE SOMETHING BIG!!!!"

"Anything's possible, but Trump's usual m.o. is to shake the box in different ways from standard US presidents. Trump typically tries to gain someone's trust so that he can lead the person."

"TRAITOR TRAITOR!!!! TREASON TREASON!!!!"

"I'm not really sure you're rationally analyzing these events. Maybe take a break from this for a little while?"

"YOU'RE A COCKHOLSTER!!!! TRUMPHOLSTER COCKHOLSTER!!!!"

<backs away slowly>

--

I mean, sure, run on "no treason with Russia" if you will. Go for it. The above is what the conversation looks like to sane people.


This has literally nothing to do with anything. Cool fan fiction though.
   1289. greenback made it work, honey Posted: July 21, 2018 at 03:33 PM (#5713516)
In other news, the White House projects a $1 trillion deficit in 2019:
Budget watchdogs said that deficits had doubled in recent years as a result of bipartisan spending agreements and the GOP tax-cut law passed in December.

“This is a striking acknowledgement following almost two years of claims that economic growth unleashed by these policies will wipe deficits away,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The budget outlook maintained the rosy economic projections the Trump White House has used in previous forecasts, but seemed to indicate a slight retreat from an earlier promise.

Trump officials have regularly argued that the administration’s policies would lead to sustained economic growth of 3 percent over 10 years, well above mainstream projections. In its updated budget outlook, OMB’s average growth rate dropped under 3 percent over the decade, dipping below the target as of 2025.

There's some research out there that governments that are unable to tax their constituents choose to use inflation as a substitute. No wonder Trump is whining about the Fed raising rates.
   1290. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5713528)
This has literally nothing to do with anything. Cool fan fiction though


You’re right, it wasn’t realistic; it didn’t have enough homophobic slurs.
   1291. -- Posted: July 21, 2018 at 05:30 PM (#5713534)
You’re right, it wasn’t realistic; it didn’t have enough homophobic slurs.


Trump's history's worst monster.

He's a fascist!!!

No, wait wait I have a better one he's not just a fascist:

He's a ... passive orificial receptacle for another man's ####!!!!!!!!
   1292. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:23 PM (#5713542)
Not passive, enthusiastic. And not literally, metaphorically.

Exceptionally sane and perceptive people shouldn't need this explained to them 35 times.
   1293. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:26 PM (#5713543)
Trump's history's worst monster.

He's a fascist!!!

No, wait wait I have a better one he's not just a fascist:

He's a ... passive orificial receptacle for another man's ####!!!!!!!!


Political tribes have always been cults. Democrats backed Obama to the hilt. They backed Clinton. Republicans backed Reagan and Bush.

It's telling that only the left feels the need to resort to homophobic slurs to describe this.

They also appear to think that the name calling is wounding to people. But why would it be an insult to be called gay? Those being called gay here don't view it that way, and thus are not insulted. But those using the slurs DO view being called gay as an insult, which is quite the commentary.
   1294. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:31 PM (#5713544)

Who gives a ####?

Like honestly, who gives a flying #### what "gut sense" some guy who wasn't in charge of the investigation had? Do we convict based off law enforcement first impressions in our legal system?

What a silly, bizarre point to keep returning back to. No one cares what some guy thought about the likelihood of some kind of collusion case in 2016. What we care about is what can be proven. Gut senses and first impressions don't mean anything in a court of law.


The breathless headlines at the time this broke were "Trump campaign investigated for colluding with Russia" and such.

Coming to find out that one of the lead investigators thought it was all one big pile of nothing at the time it began is newsworthy to all but hacks.

And it's still one big pile of nothing, two years later. But it's just around the next corner, I'm sure.
   1295. spycake Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:38 PM (#5713546)
Huh? If Trump was buddying up to, say, Merkel, and people mocked him by calling him her (hopeful) lover, would that be a heterophobic slur?

The insult isn't the gay part -- it's Trump's admiration for and attitude toward Putin.
   1296. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:41 PM (#5713548)
And it's still one big pile of nothing, two years later. But it's just around the next corner, I'm sure.


And you're still a big steaming pile of stupid.
   1297. Lassus Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:42 PM (#5713549)
Glad to see the spymaster climate scientist step up his cultural sexuality doctorate while I was on vacation.
   1298. spycake Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5713550)
Now obviously if someone is invoking actual slurs like f*g, that is inappropriate. But simply referring to them as lovers is not, even if one uses some "blue" language to do so. Blue language is not inherently a slur or anti-anything.
   1299. -- Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:46 PM (#5713551)
But those using the slurs DO view being called gay as an insult, which is quite the commentary.


Not just an insult, but the swellest, most biting insult ever.
   1300. DavidFoss Posted: July 21, 2018 at 06:49 PM (#5713552)
The insult isn't the gay part -- it's Trump's admiration for and attitude toward Putin.

It's dated schoolyard humor. Obsequious/subservient implies romantic interest. I'm sure re-watching low-brow comedies from the 80s/90s will reveal many of these.

Conservatives lost on the battle against gay marriage but they seem to relish pointing out the irony of those old jokes. Who would think that the Daily Caller would be the guardians against homophobia? "We don't want to sell you a cake. We don't think you should have any spousal rights. We liked you better in the closet and think you are going to hell. But, hey, we got your back on this one type of schoolyard joke!!!"
Page 13 of 16 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 >  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
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogWeekend OMNICHATTER for August 18-19, 2018
(6 - 2:37pm, Aug 18)
Last: Bote Man is no David

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(324 - 2:36pm, Aug 18)
Last: Chicago Joe

NewsblogOTP 2018 August 13: 'Don't confuse sports with politics,' Kosovo tells Bosnia
(1441 - 2:35pm, Aug 18)
Last: Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty

NewsblogIt’s official: PawSox to move to Worcester - The Boston Globe
(7 - 2:34pm, Aug 18)
Last: QLE

NewsblogRays Disrupt Baseball’s Tanking Industry by — Get This — Trying to Win - The New York Times
(52 - 2:34pm, Aug 18)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogLatest bigotry reminds us that baseball is a white man's game.
(312 - 2:30pm, Aug 18)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogLooking back at the Gio Gonzalez trade.
(34 - 2:28pm, Aug 18)
Last: Bote Man is no David

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(98 - 2:26pm, Aug 18)
Last: PJ Martinez

NewsblogCalcaterra - Dusty Baker Drops Truth Bombs
(22 - 12:59pm, Aug 18)
Last: Bote Man is no David

Gonfalon CubsThe Third Third
(165 - 10:16am, Aug 18)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (August 2018)
(865 - 9:22am, Aug 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogAthletic Writer Throws Fit Over Rhode Island Not Giving Into Stadium Financing Scheme
(3 - 2:23am, Aug 18)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogYou don't need Top Secret Clearance to OMNICHATTER! for August 17, 2018
(94 - 2:04am, Aug 18)
Last: spanx for the memories

Sox TherapyExtra Special
(37 - 12:56am, Aug 18)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(835 - 10:03pm, Aug 17)
Last: DJS, the Digital Dandy

Page rendered in 0.8127 seconds
46 querie(s) executed