The Next President is...

[kaputt]

I found it interesting last night the amount of low hanging fruit/genuine positives, that the left did not stand or applaud for. 

Lowest minority unemployment rate ever, record number of women in Congress, firing incompetent VA employees, etc... 

Not sure why those all can’t be applauded? 

Edited February 6, 2019 by kaputt
Typos

[SurelySerious]

26 minutes ago, kaputt said:

I found it interesting last night the amount of low hanging fruit/genuine positives, that the left did not stand or applaud for. 

Lowest minority unemployment rate ever, record number of women in Congress, firing incompetent VA employees, etc... 

Not sure why those all can’t be applauded? 

Because it is a show against an idea, not what is actually happening or not. 

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, kaputt said:

I found it interesting last night the amount of low hanging fruit/genuine positives, that the left did not stand or applaud for. 

Lowest minority unemployment rate ever, record number of women in Congress, firing incompetent VA employees, etc... 

Not sure why those all can’t be applauded? 

Orange man bad.

[matmacwc]

On 1/28/2019 at 4:20 PM, Vertigo said:

The vast majority of illegals (roughly 2/3) arrive via legal means and then overstay their visa.

How does a wall keep this from happening? 

 

 

The new talking point coming out of the left, doesn’t help the hundreds in the AZ desert that’s gets us called off the ranges.  Illegals wandering around a bombing range, with their visas in their pocket....yeah right.  Some of us see it with our own eyes, not on MSNBC.

[brickhistory]

Over/under on total number of candidates for President on the Democrat side for 2020?

 

Also, if she accuses, she must be believed.  Or if you do racist things - blackface/KKK robes, even if 30 years ago, you are racist now.

Right, Robert Byrd?

[Tank]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Over/under on total number of candidates for President on the Democrat side for 2020?

 

Also, if she accuses, she must be believed.  Or if you do racist things - blackface/KKK robes, even if 30 years ago, you are racist now.

Right, Robert Byrd?

Over/Under:

18 candidates...

 

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Over/under on total number of candidates for President on the Democrat side for 2020?

If @Tank says 18, I’m taking the under.

Right now there are 8 declared and Klobuchar is declaring today so call it 9. I expect Beto and Bernie to declare and possibly Biden. Others note serious possibles are Inslee, Brown and Hickenlooper.

Even if all of those jump in that’s only 15, and that’s being generous and including John Delaney as a plausible candidate. If I’m a betting man I also think Biden won’t run and some of these other maybes will stay away.

BL: My guess is 12.

Edited February 10, 2019 by nsplayr

[Lawman]

Totally enjoying the screaming and cries from the DNC because a very electable centrist Democrat might run as an independent. The smartest thing democrats could do would be tell the fringe idiots like AOC to STFU and color and put Schultz on the ballot. He’d destroy any chance Trump had at holding an electoral advantage, but no they gotta find a way to win using the hardest method possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prozac]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

Totally enjoying the screaming and cries from the DNC because a very electable centrist Democrat might run as an independent. The smartest thing democrats could do would be tell the fringe idiots like AOC to STFU and color and put Schultz on the ballot. He’d destroy any chance Trump had at holding an electoral advantage, but no they gotta find a way to win using the hardest method possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a guy who leans Democrat, I’m inclined to agree with you. There is some great commentary lately from the likes of David Frum and James Carville basically arguing exactly this. If the dems loose in 2020 it will be because they are continuing to ignore exactly those Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. voters who handed Trump the win in 2016. It seems both parties these days are totally beholden to their bases and the centrists (whom I believe are the real silent majority in this country) will be perpetually left out in the cold. 

[Lawman]

On 2/10/2019 at 8:48 PM, Prozac said:

As a guy who leans Democrat, I’m inclined to agree with you. There is some great commentary lately from the likes of David Frum and James Carville basically arguing exactly this. If the dems loose in 2020 it will be because they are continuing to ignore exactly those Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. voters who handed Trump the win in 2016. It seems both parties these days are totally beholden to their bases and the centrists (whom I believe are the real silent majority in this country) will be perpetually left out in the cold. 

My whole family are union service job blue color Ohio/Penn democrats.

Any time I open my mouth with what or why those people would possibly vote for Trump or sit out an election because of the complete scizm in the dem party toward extreme left loonacy the coastal loons all dismiss it as “your family must be racist or something.” No they were promised a bill of goods with Obama and none of it happened. Because to those people the most important thing for our government to be concentrated on isn’t social progress and global warming. It’s sound foreign policy for their deployed sons/daughters, it’s not trying to hobble manufacturing jobs through ridiculous cafe restrictions or corporate taxes, and it’s not telling s bunch of nurses if they think there are limits on when abortion becomes wrong they are evil, and it’s not telling a guy who worked as both a cop and a military officer he can’t have a gun to defend his family because he might be a mass shooter waiting to happen.

Until the democractic party learns that lesson I’m more than happy to watch them get their butts kicked in the greater electorate. But it’s just easier to hit the button that dismisses loss to a person like Trump as part of some secret army of racists so they probably won’t learn anything. 

 

 

[matmacwc]

Too bad we don’t have people “minimizing” any crime we might commit.  HRC got away with things we would not.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43399/new-emails-confirm-fbi-tried-work-deal-state-dept-james-barrett

Edited February 13, 2019 by matmacwc

[Disco_Nav963]

16 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Too bad we don’t have people “minimizing” any crime we might commit.  HRC got away with things we would not.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43399/new-emails-confirm-fbi-tried-work-deal-state-dept-james-barrett

Except that the actual documents which are linked to on the Fox News story do not match the spin that the Daily Wire has put on them... Notably "On Monday, Fox News' Gregg Re reported that over two years later, the allegation that the FBI and State Department floated a 'quid pro quo' deal has now been confirmed, and it originated with the FBI." Well, no. The PDFs make clear that the documents Page was forwarding to Quinn were the source of the October '16 news stories.

Lisa Page on Thursday 10/13/16: "These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week..." 

Then two days later, Saturday 10/15/16, Fox's Herridge emails the FBI "Two congressional sources tell fox news that fbi interview summaries and notes, provided to the house intelligence committee late Friday, contain allegations of a 'quid pro quo' between a senior state department executive Patrick Kennedy and FBI agents during the Clinton email investigation."

None of the new FBI emails in the FOIA PDF release that was given to Judicial Watch, which include Page's brief summary of the 302s but not the 302s themselves, speak to who originated the quid pro quo proposal like the Daily Wire piece claims they do. Nor does the Fox News story by Gregg Re that Daily Wire cites speak to who proposed it. This Atlantic Monthly piece from 10/17/16, citing language from the 302s themselves (which the FBI released at the time), states explicitly that the proposal originated with State's Patrick Kennedy and that the FBI agent he floated it to wasn't having it. These new docs don't "confirm" the 2016 story inasmuch as no one has been saying it needed confirming. The 302s were already public back then. The only thing that is new here is we now have a heavily redacted set of emails including a couple from Page discussing the impending release of the 302s.

... And of course the Daily Wire piece uses that to muddy the waters, and quotes sloppy language from the Fox News piece ("trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI") to make it sound like Page was a party to the proposed quid pro quo as opposed to a third party who was forwarding on the 302s from the agent that actually was in the room when State proposed it.

To your statement that HRC got away with crimes we would not, well, fact. Civilians get away with things we do not. That's the rub. Where DOJ can't prove intentional unauthorized removal/retention, false statements, leaking, etc. they have not charged criminally... To include cases like Bush's AG Al Gonzales. DOD is much quicker to drop the hammer. To me the most appropriate COA given the facts that were known at the time would have actually been to strip HRC of her security clearance, and review the clearances of her top aides who sent classified stuff to the private email account (esp. this apparent doucher Kennedy). Especially a no-brainer given the "extremely careless" conduct combined with the fact that she was no longer performing the role of Secretary of State when all this was discovered anyway... Then if she can explain in a non-dissembling way to the American people (a) that she f---ed up, she's sorry, and (b) if and how she would employ the former aides that had their clearances reviewed, then the vote of the electorate is kind of the ultimate avenue of appeal to get her clearance back. Of course, (a) she was congenitally incapable of talking about the issue without deflecting responsibility like Millennial Blue 4  at his first debrief, and (b) having sweated out the FBI probe BHO wasn't about to hose his party's nominee by publicly imposing an administrative penalty. 

But all that being said... the 45 administration's sweetheart treatment of Clown Prince Kushner's clearance after his 69 SF-86 revisions and forgetting to mention having tried to establish a secret, surveillance-proof back channel to the Kremlin via the Russian embassy is significantly stinkier. And if you think the FBI was in cahoots with the Clinton campaign after dropping an October Surprise on HRC (Weiner laptop) while keeping the CI probe of the Trump campaign secret squirrel, I can't help you.

Source links to recap:
The new Fox story that Daily Wire misleadingly quotes
The FOIA docs themselves
The October 2016 Atlantic piece that says it originated with State
10/19/16 story from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution confirming Atlantic Monthly's version (incl. interview with the FBI agent, Brian McCauley, not Lisa Page)

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Disco_Nav963

[matmacwc]

So all that to say she still had a classified server that was illegal, nice.

[brickhistory]

11 hours ago, matmacwc said:

So all that to say she still had a classified server that was illegal, nice.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

TS/SCI, special access information on my personal e-mail, never mind my own personal server which by its very presence violates yet another federal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552

One law for me, another for thee

or

Too Big To Jail

 

I'm agin that.

Edited February 14, 2019 by brickhistory

[Sua Sponte]

9 hours ago, brickhistory said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

TS/SCI, special access information on my personal e-mail, never mind my own personal server which by its very presence violates yet another federal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552

One law for me, another for thee

or

Too Big To Jail

 

I'm agin that.

And the girl that falsely accused me of sexual assault lied on an official statement. Per the UCMJ, that's a max of five years in confinement and a dishonorable discharge for making a false official statement. Is she ever going to be punished for doing that? No, not even with me having a copy of her statement she lied on. Shit happens.

You harping on how Hilary broke the law isn't going to get her in trouble, because, well the FBI said they aren't recommending charges. Plenty of people wanted Nixon to fry too and were nuclear mad that he got a pardon, but, I think that was the right thing to do because Ford had to heal the nation from a huge scandal.

Cliff Notes: Life isn't far, it's tough, wear a helmet.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Sua Sponte

[matmacwc]

No, we are simply discrediting any arguement she’s an angel.

[Vertigo]

Interesting to note all those people who railed against Obama's use of executive privilege are remaining silent on Trump declaring a "national emergency", this completely sidestepping the legislative branch of government to fund his pet project.

 

 

[Prozac]

12 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Interesting to note all those people who railed against Obama's use of executive privilege are remaining silent on Trump declaring a "national emergency", this completely sidestepping the legislative branch of government to fund his pet project.

 

 

This. When the other party does it it’s the evil imperial presidency. When your guy does it.......well it seems perfectly reasonable/ there is plenty of precedent/ extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, etc. THIS is exactly the kind of thinking that erodes the constitution. I’m FLOORED by the number of Republican lawmakers that seem perfectly fine with abdicating their power to the executive. 

[pawnman]

Well, I'm against it just like I was when Obama did it, and Rand Paul issued a statement that he's displeased with the way Congress signed a thousand page bill into law overnight with no public scrutiny AND the President's intent to declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress.  So... At least one lawmaker is sticking to his principles.

[Vertigo]

[MooseAg03]

I think it’s a terrible idea. This is what happens with divided government, everyone has to compromise. If he hated the funding bill so much, he should have the stones to veto it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bfargin]

6 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Actually he is (not even close to a conservative - but maybe partially a modern day repub). We're screwed from everywhere. As mentioned if Congress had the stones to do their job and if the Prez had the stones to veto a bill he didn't want, we'd all be better off. At least then the government would be doing its job as far as process anyway.

[brickhistory]

9 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Interesting to note all those people who railed against Obama's use of executive privilege are remaining silent on Trump declaring a "national emergency", this completely sidestepping the legislative branch of government to fund his pet project.

A.  Didn't know this was a "reply when I demand it" forum.

B. Wanted to wait until Trump had actually done something and not contribute to the infinite "reportedly," "supposedly," and "sources say" world that exists with this Administration.

C. Am receive only at work for baseops, so had to wait until I got home to comment.

D. Wish he hadn't done it.  As I said during Obama's many stretches of the executive authority (BTW, were you all up in arms with him or was it ok because, well, he's Obama? Still can't get over how the court prohibits Trump from overturning Obama's executive action but prevents Trump from doing many others), it would just make it more tempting for the next guy, R or D, to move the ball further down the field.  Next guy will do the same and then some.  Not a good road to be taking, regardless of party.

E. Crafty, but little reported, is that Trump is using one of Obama's previous Executive Orders to call this National Emergency under.

E. Actual high profile Democrats are calling for removing even the existing parts of any barriers and unlimited, uncontrolled immigration.

What could possibly go wrong with either their future elections or to the country?

[dream big]

12 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Interesting to note all those people who railed against Obama's use of executive privilege are remaining silent on Trump declaring a "national emergency", this completely sidestepping the legislative branch of government to fund his pet project.

 

 

Interesting to see all the people quiet when Obama abused executive privilege now up in arms about Trump using executive power..see how that works?

The difference is this time it is actually to protect Americans from the out of control illegal immigration flood. 

[Vertigo]

13 hours ago, dream big said:

 

The difference is this time it is actually to protect Americans from the out of control illegal immigration flood. 

The funny thing is you actually believe that.

 

And yes I wasn't a fan of Obama's use of EOs. But then I don't remember him using them to fund projects not authorized by Congress either.