The Next President is...

[lloyd christmas]

44 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

My original point was that at no time were Biden or Harris really outside they mainstream of national views on criminal justice, even if their “tough on crime” stances from, say, the 90s, but them at odds with where the Democratic Party in particular is today. The Dem Party, Biden/Harris, and to a lesser extent America as a whole have evolved a bit toward wanting less-harsh criminal justice measures applied, especially to low-level non-violent drug offenders, eg the pair have moved their positions along with public opinion rather than remaining strict ideologues.

The "how did we get here" question IRT our criminal justice system, policing and systemic racism is being asked and will continue to be asked throughout this election cycle.  Biden and Harris have a lot of explaining to do.  That was my point with the moderates.  I believe moderates will lean towards law and order and they will stay away from politicians who contributed to shaping our current criminal justice system.  Rioting and looting only cements peoples belief in law and order policies.  Folks on the right certainly will not be plucked away from voting Republican even if they aren't Trump fans.   So where does that leave the Dems?  As you said above, "even if their “tough on crime” stances from, say, the 90s, put them at odds with where the Democratic Party in particular is today".  Again, not a good look in my opinion.  

I think Americans are even more sick of career politicians today than they were in 2016.  Career politicians created all of these problems but now are running on fixing them.  Same old same old.  I don't think people are interested in hearing any more of that.  

[hindsight2020]

13 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

 Same old same old.  I don't think people are interested in hearing any more of that.  

*yawn* this whole discussion is a same ol same ol. Two neoliberal corporatist cartels squabbling over labels and cultural issues that don't put food on the table, yai. "Normie" Americans get what they vote for.

Now back to lurking this thread for another 4 years, y'all have fun with the kabuki show.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by hindsight2020

[Seadogs]

10 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

*yawn* this whole discussion is a same ol same ol. Two neoliberal corporatist cartels squabbling over labels and cultural issues that don't put food on the table, yai. "Normie" Americans get what they vote for, when they fail to see the deficit as one of class. Typical achiles heel of a multi-cultural society. Divide and conquer 101. I digress.

This forum is mostly samurai/Centurion class beneficiaries anyways, so the clamor for neoliberal Empire stasis of any flavor is understandable. Of course saying so makes one the g-damned Khmer Rouge all of a sudden (in Europe you're just a centrist LOL), which is why I don't engage on here. At any rate, my point being most of the people swinging these elections are not members of the de facto Second Estate (e.g. professional managerial class et al), so it pays to look outside the PMC echo chamber. Now, I'm not a proponent of actively fostering accelerationist socioeconomic dynamics, but if they end up moving the brackets on the Overton Window, well... to quote ol Billy. "We didnt start the fire....".😄 

Now back to lurking this thread for another 4 years, y'all have fun with the kabuki show.

 

 

English, please. 

[nsplayr]

VPs rarely ever deliver states anymore, the effect is very small. Indiana was going for the Republican nominee in 2016 no matter what (although it was a surprise in the Obama 2008 coalition). Ironically California (Harris) balances Delaware (Biden) quite well in terms of geographic spread which is sometimes desirable. Harris is the first member of the most populous state in the nation on either party’s ticket since Reagan 40 years ago!

Harris balances Biden most importantly in age and identify, both of which are important in the Democratic Party. She’s also a credible President on day 1, as was Pence, which IMHO is the very most important criteria for a VP.

On age, Biden (and Trump! and Hillary!) are all IMHO too old to be a President who could win and govern through two terms with all their marbles intact. Not everyone believes that but I do at least. 45-65 is my strike zone for a President or other high level leader and ideally they’d all be done and retire by age 70, i.e. don’t run for a first term if you’re already over age 62. Biden is 77 and Harris is 55 and she’s already been in the Senate since 2017 after working her way though other high-level state offices - good balance.

In terms of identity, the Democratic Party still has a lot of white male leaders while white males are a minority of typical party voters, so it was important in a big-picture sense to have more leaders who are women, people of color, or both. It’s not about “racism” or “sexism,” but representation and making an effort to have our party leadership look like the party membership. Stating the obvious, she is a she, she’s black and Indian, and the daughter of two immigrants. He is a he, white, and of longer American-born lineage - good balance.

Edited August 12, 2020 by nsplayr

[dream big]

On 8/11/2020 at 4:31 PM, nsplayr said:

I know you meant this snidely, but Biden picked Harris. Good choice IMHO, she was my fav of the people Biden apparently had on his shortlist. Smart, tough debater, good campaigner, previously vetted, current holder of high office, the proper age to balance the ticket.

“Previously vetted.”  You sure about that? By whom? What’s to say the Trump campaign doesn’t have a surprise skeleton to reveal about her come October? Sure would be karma after the Kavanaugh debacle. 

[brickhistory]

Two good things for America, I believe.  One yesterday, one today.

Yesterday, the current Administration announced it had brokered a deal for diplomatic relations establishment between UAE and Israel.  That's a very significant development.

Today, the first guilty plea occured in the Obamagate investigation.  An FBI lawyer pled guilty to intentionally altering a document that was used to renew, again, one of the bogus FISA applications on the Trump campaign.

While I'm too cynical to believe that any of those "too big to fail" will ever perform a perp walk, that fact that a worker bee is being held accountable might, just maybe, be a hindarance for future wannabe hop on board the corruption train riders in our government.  I do hope there will be more such items to follow.

[billy pilgrim]

On 8/12/2020 at 2:02 PM, nsplayr said:In terms of identity, the Democratic Party still has a lot of white male leaders while white males are a minority of typical party voters, so it was important in a big-picture sense to have more leaders who are women, people of color, or both. It’s not about “racism” or “sexism,” but representation and making an effort to have our party leadership look like the party membership. Stating the obvious, she is a she, she’s black and Indian, and the daughter of two immigrants. He is a he, white, and of longer American-born lineage - good balance.

I disagree on any emphasis on race or gender or any discriminator.  It's divisive.  The individual is the ultimate minority.

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, billy pilgrim said:

I disagree on any emphasis on race or gender or any discriminator.  It's divisive.  The individual is the ultimate minority.

Cool story bro.

[Sua Sponte]

On 8/14/2020 at 12:29 PM, brickhistory said:

Two good things for America, I believe.  One yesterday, one today.

Yesterday, the current Administration announced it had brokered a deal for diplomatic relations establishment between UAE and Israel.  That's a very significant development.

Today, the first guilty plea occured in the Obamagate investigation.  An FBI lawyer pled guilty to intentionally altering a document that was used to renew, again, one of the bogus FISA applications on the Trump campaign.

While I'm too cynical to believe that any of those "too big to fail" will ever perform a perp walk, that fact that a worker bee is being held accountable might, just maybe, be a hindarance for future wannabe hop on board the corruption train riders in our government.  I do hope there will be more such items to follow.

His problem was that he wasn’t friends with the President.

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[brickhistory]

Indeed.

[Sua Sponte]

Except your boy never did a perp walk or do time in prison. 

[brickhistory]

A. He's not "my boy."  I think Stone is a loathsome human being.  

B. You really aren't very good at this.

Roger Stone arrest raid conveniently covered by CNN.  A full-up tactical team to take down a old man.  Nice...

[Sua Sponte]

12 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

A. He's not "my boy."  I think Stone is a loathsome human being.  

B. You really aren't very good at this.

Roger Stone arrest raid conveniently covered by CNN.  A full-up tactical team to take down a old man.  Nice...

Of course he’s not your boy, now. Doesn’t fit your narrative. Go back to your echo chamber. Uh, the Feds don’t come to your door with one agent and ask you to come out nicely.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[brickhistory]

I defer to those who have such experience...

[Seriously]

On 8/14/2020 at 11:29 PM, brickhistory said:

Two good things for America, I believe.  One yesterday, one today.

Yesterday, the current Administration announced it had brokered a deal for diplomatic relations establishment between UAE and Israel.  That's a very significant development.

Today, the first guilty plea occured in the Obamagate investigation.  An FBI lawyer pled guilty to intentionally altering a document that was used to renew, again, one of the bogus FISA applications on the Trump campaign.

While I'm too cynical to believe that any of those "too big to fail" will ever perform a perp walk, that fact that a worker bee is being held accountable might, just maybe, be a hindarance for future wannabe hop on board the corruption train riders in our government.  I do hope there will be more such items to follow.

A third good thing: Bannon's arrest for fraud. 

[FLEA]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/512938-trump-asks-supreme-court-to-let-him-block-critics-on-twitter

 

This is super interesting to me. It has implications beyond just the office of president. For example, the Army just faced a ton of backlash for using the social media platform Twitch to target their recruitment efforts towards adolescents who are into video games. They began banning users who started trolling the stream with comments about war crimes committed by the US military. This was found to be unlawful by several watch dogs as a first amendment violation. 

[brickhistory]

Meanwhile, in Obamagate news:

On Friday, former CIA Director Brennan was interviewed for eight (8) hours by the Durham investigation of how/why the whole thing went down.

There are several notes to ponder:

1. An attorney for Brennan not present at the interview and not using any direct quotes from Brennan states "he's not a target" and that Brennan questioned the intent of the investigation as a political witchhunt.

There was no such statement, or any for that matter, by the Durham investigators.  No leaks either.  I seem to remember one or two when it was Trump under the microscope...

2. The interview was conducted at CIA HQ in Langley vs main DOJ in downtown DC.  That makes the jurisdiction for any potential crimes resulting from this interview, i.e., lying to federal officials, a matter for the Eastern District Court of Virginia instead of the DC District Court.  One jurisdiction is historically much more lenient regarding senior federal officials being indicted and/or convicted than the other.

[drewpey]

Other points to ponder...why is Barr's letter on the Russian investigation completely at odds with the bipartisan senate intelligence community report annex that was recently released?  Why have all of Trump's 2016 campaign managers been arrested?  Why does Trump keep hiring people he later describes as wackos, overrated or "dumb as a rock"?

[brickhistory]

You'd have to ask Trump about his personnel choices.

As I understand it, the Senate report documents the facts of attempted, possibly successful, influence on the 2016 election with Russia favoring Trump and China favoring Clinton.  That the report is not about the investigations into the Trump campaign and administration but rather about foreign attempts on our election systems.  Which, by the way, occurred under Obama's watch and he, literally, did nothing.

That said, my on-going concern with the Russiagate/Obamagate thing is the strong possibility that one administration actively used the instruments of US power - mainly federal law enforcemet and intel community - to spy on and delay/obstruct/interfere with the actions of, another succeeding administration.

If that's true, it's really bad.  As in end of the Republic bad.

Political shenanigans are one thing, but when rank and file worker bees choose sides and use their offices/powers to aid/abet that use, I fear that.  Against me, against you, against anyone.  And if it's happened already, it's very likely to happen again, and worse, unless there are public consequences against those that did so.  

Certainly, I hope to see Brennan (admitted former Communist, not a wild accusation, but historical fact.  Not to mention that he literally spied on the Senate, lied to them under oath, then got caught out, and the then-Democrat led Senate did nothing...) led away in cuffs.  Same for some other high-profile folks involved. 

 

But if Clinesmith, Vindmann, et al, feel like they can take on political leadership they don't happen to like, then it's all moot and we become who can gain/hold power by means that I don't get a vote about.   I fear it is too late, but I am hoping that if there are fairly severe consequences, that others in the future won't be so quick to say, "Sure, I'll do that."

[Breckey]

Is that worse than members of a campaign actively working with agents of a foreign country to find and release "dirt" on a presidential opponent? What about members of a transition team initiating backdoor talks with a foreign government to overturn US policy?

Also how is Vindman any different than Oliver North? He was subpoenaed by Congress to testify.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Breckey said:

Is that worse than members of a campaign actively working with agents of a foreign country to find and release "dirt" on a presidential opponent? What about members of a transition team initiating backdoor talks with a foreign government to overturn US policy?

Also how is Vindman any different than Oliver North? He was subpoenaed by Congress to testify.

First sentence: proven this happened with the Clinton campaign.  Any proof Trump campaign did this?  

Second sentence: the transition team is supposed to initiate back door talks with other governments.  That’s how you get ready for front door talks a few months later.  And by “overturn US policy” do you mean “initiate new US policy they were elected to execute?”

Third sentence: what does that question have to do with anything?  I’m confused at the relevance of the connection.

[drewpey]

2 hours ago, brickhistory said:

As I understand it, the Senate report documents the facts of attempted, possibly successful, influence on the 2016 election with Russia favoring Trump and China favoring Clinton.  That the report is not about the investigations into the Trump campaign and administration but rather about foreign attempts on our election systems.  Which, by the way, occurred under Obama's watch and he, literally, did nothing.

I appreciate your unabashed honesty of your ignorance.  It's clear you haven't read anything about it and have gone to great lengths to avoid learning anything about the report, and nothing I say with change that.  Back to fox news old man.

[brickhistory]

Fox is the new NBC.  Do try to keep up.

So, for my edification, and others, what does it say?  Is my boiled down version suitable for a thread post wrong?  If so, how?

[brickhistory]

A follow-up, but related questions for those on the opposite side of the view:

Are you ok with the Clinton server/e-mail investigation complete with the 8-10 TS/SCI, SAP/STO e-mails?

Are you ok with the use of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate an opponent for political reasons?

Would you be ok if the party that used those agencies in such a manner?

I would and am not.

If one side does it and gets away with it - the deliberate and intentional use of federal resources, law enforcement techniques, and intelligence sources and methods - to investigate and/or hinder the policies of that oppostion, then any look at history will show that such will simply increase.  If there are no consequences to misdeeds, then why not do it?

As I wrote in a previous post, unmaskings of Americans, wildly overused by the Obama Administration, are at an industrial scale under the current one.

It is that use of instruments of federal power against Americans, much more than the political back and forth, that interests me on this issue.

One rule of law or not.  If not, then you and I need to ensure we get to be on the winning side because it's gonna suck to be on the losing one.  And elections won't matter then.

[Breckey]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

First sentence: proven this happened with the Clinton campaign.  Any proof Trump campaign did this?  

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report Vol. 5 page 943.

Quote

The Committee's bipartisan Report found that a member of the Trump Campaign's foreign policy advisory team was provided with advance notice of the Russian plot to anonymously release hacked emails that would damage Trump's opponent and the Report found that it is implausible that this information was not passed to the Campaign. The advance notice of a forthcoming covert Russian intervention on Trump's behalf came from an individual linked to the Russian government, and took place in April 2016, prior to any public awareness of the Russian meddling effort. No authorities were notified.

 

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

Second sentence: the transition team is supposed to initiate back door talks with other governments.  That’s how you get ready for front door talks a few months later.  And by “overturn US policy” do you mean “initiate new US policy they were elected to execute?

Back door talks should not include urging an ambassador to "delay a vote or veto a pending UN Security Council resolution."

Ref. https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents

 

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

Third sentence: what does that question have to do with anything?  I’m confused at the relevance of the connection.

This was a reply to brickhistory on Vindman "feel[ing] like they can take on political leadership they don't happen to like, then it's all moot and we become who can gain/hold power by means that I don't get a vote about"

Edited August 24, 2020 by Breckey