The Next President is...

[matmacwc]

Liberal morality.  That’s funny.

[Lawman]

So Obama can fire his top Generals for being "a thorn in his side", but Trump can't take away a government security clearance (for someone who is no longer working for the government) for also being "a thorn in his side"?
I get it dude, you don't like Trump and don't like 99% of what he does, so why should this be any different?  

And in fairness Rumsfield/Cheney carried out some of the same crappy kind of retribution firing before that.

That’s the whole thing that drives me nuts with this every outrage is a 13/10 in the news cycle. Trump isn’t playing some new game, he’s just not nearly as good at playing it as the career snakes that came before him. Nor is he being given the benefit of that reflection by his critics who hear any past precedent of that behavior and scream “whataboutism!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

Doesn’t matter, he wasn’t Enlisted. Different spanks for different ranks. 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/01/air-force-busts-retired-four-star-general-down-two-ranks-coerced-sex/97356020/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/23/disgraced-army-general-fired-after-inappropriate-relationship/422902001/
 

Is there anything you won’t say in an attempt to excuse your conduct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hacker]

But, muh right to having a security clearance!

[drewpey]

48 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

It shows that you're not credible, that's all...

Pure ad hominem.  When you don't like the arguement, attack the messenger. Brennan, McRaven, Petraus, now Azimuth. 

 

50 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So Obama can fire his top Generals for being "a thorn in his side", but Trump can't take away a government security clearance (for someone who is no longer working for the government) for also being "a thorn in his side"?

I get it dude, you don't like Trump and don't like 99% of what he does, so why should this be any different?  

It's different because it sets a new partisan precedent with a very strong presidential power which can and will be abused. Conservatives love to undermine institutions for immediate benefit without regard to the future, but I don't want to see the security clearance system being used for political purposes. It leads to nowhere good. Imagine being asked if your your political affiliation on your SF86.

[Hacker]

1 hour ago, drewpey said:

It's different because it sets a new partisan precedent with a very strong presidential power which can and will be abused.

How far back have you been paying attention to the expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch?

Clearly not more than, say, 10 years, if you think this is something even remotely "new".

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, drewpey said:

Pure ad hominem.  When you don't like the arguement, attack the messenger. Brennan, McRaven, Petraus, now Azimuth. 

 

It's different because it sets a new partisan precedent with a very strong presidential power which can and will be abused. Conservatives love to undermine institutions for immediate benefit without regard to the future, but I don't want to see the security clearance system being used for political purposes. It leads to nowhere good. Imagine being asked if your your political affiliation on your SF86.

Oh please...progressives don't care about maintaining the integrity of government anymore than statists who self identify as conservatives.  Just look at the IRS scandals, Fast and Furious, Obama's Attorney General refusing to cooperate with releasing government records to Congress, and on and on.

So don't give me the "it's different now" BS.  I'm not a fan of the political games/nonsense when Trump does it anymore than when the same was done by his predecessors.  But to say that it's worse today than a few years ago just goes to show your bias.  You don't like Trump because he signed a tax cut, has reversed many of Obama's executive orders/allowed for more deregulation, gets to put put at least two new conservatives on the Supreme Court, etc.  You have even recently said yourself that our gun rights need to be reduced...again, you're a progressive, so I just see everything you post regarding Trump as bias.  I, on the other hand, can tell you that there are many of Trump's policies that I disagree with and think is causing some harm to the country in some areas, while at the same time see thst some of his policies are improving quite a few things from just a few years ago.  As for Trump himself, he's not anything close to as classy as Obama or Bush when it comes to speaking/rhetoric...but I've learned over the last couple of decades that actions speak a lot louder than words.

[tk1313]

On 8/17/2018 at 11:17 AM, Vertigo said:

I expect the day will come that Mattis speaks out against Trump over something and all the MAGA heads start denigrating him over it.

It will be almost as funny as when the liberal media went after Mattis for saying it was fun to shoot terrorists who treat their wives like shit. Turns out Americans don't think it's insensitive to enjoy killing bad guys... A win's a win. I truly believe the only reason they haven't asked him if he thinks Trump "colluded with the Russians" is because they know they won't like his answer, and he'll make them look silly by asking for trivial things like "evidence" and "motive." Keep attacking/spellchecking his mean tweets... that's the left's bread and butter right now.

Edited August 18, 2018 by tk1313

[Lawman]

It will be almost as juicy as when the liberal media went after Mattis for saying it was fun to shoot terrorists who treat their wives like shit. Turns out Americans don't think it's insensitive to enjoy killing bad guys... A win's a win. I truly believe the only reason they haven't asked him if he thinks Trump "colluded with the Russians" is because they know they won't like his answer, and he'll make them look silly by asking for trivial things like "evidence" and "motive." Keep attacking/spellchecking his mean tweets... that's the left's bread and butter right now.

Take a look at how they are backtracking form the reports of the 93 million dollar parade. Mattis comes off the top rope to say “whoever sourced that is smoking something,” and now nothing about the parade in the media.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, drewpey said:

It's different because it sets a new partisan precedent with a very strong presidential power which can and will be abused. Conservatives love to undermine institutions for immediate benefit without regard to the future, but I don't want to see the security clearance system being used for political purposes. It leads to nowhere good. Imagine being asked if your your political affiliation on your SF86.

This sounds like a copy and paste of the Democratic national narrative. However, the socialistic welfare state that side has been pandering for decades is the ultimate case of immediate benefit while eroding the future. Votes now from people for an idea of free things that sound good, while further handcuffing people to handouts by way of learned helplessness with no ability to pay for said handouts in the long run. 

 

Security clearances are granted based on a need to know combined with a job that requires said clearance to function. That’s the only reason any of us have access to any classified. These former officials no longer have the need for continued access any more than the day one of us leaves the service. Nice hypoerbole about SF86s, though. 

Edited August 18, 2018 by SurelySerious

[matmacwc]

3 hours ago, drewpey said:

Imagine being asked if your your political affiliation on your SF86.

Or to upload a YouTube video, or like certain things on Facebook, or giving a conservative talk on a college campus.  Identity politics are a dangerous game festering on one side of the aisle, and it backfired.  I think SS is right, the (D)s short term political gain is coming home to roost.

[brickhistory]

Remember?

That dastardly American and his 16 year old son executed by order of the President without benefit of trial?

The Attorney General of the United States being held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over DOJ documents that were subpoenaed? (First ever such contempt finding)

The use of the IRS against one political ideology?

The FBI deciding that multiple actions that would've landed any of us for a long time in Leavenworth draws a "She was careless."

The unilateral overturning of American bankruptcy laws?

Telling the Senate when it was session despite what the Senate had declared?

The use of the IC to surveil and then unmask several hundred American citizens?

A dead of night jet filled with cash landing in Tehran?

57 states?  A Navy corpseman?

A JV ISIS?

Nah, me neither...

Brennan:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-director-john-brennan-apologizes-for-search-of-senate-computers/2014/07/31/28004b18-18c6-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e4bc27014c6b

As to the list of braying senior security clearance holders:

Their value to various corporations/think tanks/media depends on access to their successors who are still in the game, thus the clearances hold significant financial value to each holder.  Once their personal contacts bingo out, they fade off quickly into obscurity.

I don't think Brennan is particularly wealthy.  This was a direct hit on his bank account.

Watch what Trump does, not necessarily what he says.

 

Oh, and as to Trump savaging Mattis at some future point, there is that little catch-all, "serve at the pleasure of the President."  

As a guy said, "Elections have consequences."

[Lord Ratner]

 

 

 

 

That’s the whole thing that drives me nuts with this every outrage is a 13/10 in the news cycle. Trump isn’t playing some new game, he’s just not nearly as good at playing it as the career snakes that came before him. Nor is he being given the benefit of that reflection by his critics who hear any past precedent of that behavior and scream “whataboutism!”

I've said that since the primary victory. Trump as president was only possible because "the establishment," over the course of decades, dissolved any moral accountability in the underlying system of government. They cheated, they stole, they lied, they enriched themselves and their circles, they abused, and they evaded punishment. Eventually these practices became ubiquitous, and all that was left was the facade of decency and honor. But a facade cannot protect the system from intruders. Enter Trump, who's only distinction is that his words and appearance match his/their actions.

 

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[HU&W]

23 hours ago, drewpey said:

Conservatives love to undermine institutions for immediate benefit without regard to the future

Nuclear option

Pen and Phone

[Lawman]

Nuclear option
Pen and Phone

For all of Mitch’s faults (and there are plenty), I’m actually really happy to see him maintain the high road on calls from the peanut gallery and Trump to go simple majority in order to “get stuff done.”

Doubtful that others would do the same. Especially not after that giant public gavel walk a few years ago with Nancy and pals. It would be retribution plain and simple to which I’d say vendetta is never a sound political policy of discourse.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

For all of Mitch’s faults (and there are plenty), I’m actually really happy to see him maintain the high road on calls from the peanut gallery and Trump to go simple majority in order to “get stuff done.”

Doubtful that others would do the same. Especially not after that giant public gavel walk a few years ago with Nancy and pals. It would be retribution plain and simple to which I’d say vendetta is never a sound political policy of discourse.

 

You do realize that he escalated the issue and extended the nuclear option (ie simple majority) to Supreme Court nominees right?

Reid and the Dems changed the rule in 2013 for lower court and admin appointees. In 2017 McConnell and the GOP maintained that precedent and several cabinet secretaries would not have received the previously-required 60 votes.  McConnell and the GOP then also went further, and have put one (soon to be two) justices on the Supreme Court with a simple majority. McConnell and the GOP effectively also gained one of those SCOTUS seats by another rule/norm change when they refused to even hold a hearing on Merrick Garland rather than just voting him down (which they had the power to do) if they really objected to him on court.

So neither side is clean here, but McConnell especially get absolutely zero Boy Scout Points for playing by the rules in the Senate. I share your surprise that he has not moved to a simple majority for regular legislation, but that’s only due to my very low opinion of his leadership, ie I expect the worst. The fact that the GOP President is publically pushing him to go even further is telling when it comes to how far we’ve fallen in terms of what is considered acceptable.

And interestingly enough, I am probably on the pro side of doing away with the fullibuster entirely. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear on who did what and when.

Edited August 19, 2018 by nsplayr

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

playing by the rules in the Senate.

What exactly did Harry Reid think would happen when/if the majority changed hands?

My guess is that he didn't really care because he was mostly interested in the here/now and his own power.  McConnell did the same thing, but to the next logical level.  When the majority changes again in November the next Senate Pres will up the ante again.  It's the state of our politics right now.

[HU&W]

25 minutes ago, Homestar said:

What exactly did Harry Reid think would happen when/if the majority changed hands?

I'm convinced that both he and Obama thought it never would.  At a minimum, they felt they had 8 more years of helping the GOP adjust even more to the left before it did.  After all, they had deep state, MSM, and the entirety of academia in their hip pocket.  How could they fail?

Edited August 20, 2018 by HU&W

[nsplayr]

41 minutes ago, Homestar said:

What exactly did Harry Reid think would happen when/if the majority changed hands?

My guess is that he didn't really care because he was mostly interested in the here/now and his own power.  McConnell did the same thing, but to the next logical level.  When the majority changes again in November the next Senate Pres will up the ante again.  It's the state of our politics right now.

Of course Reid knew the GOP would want revenge, it's our recent race-to-the-bottom spate of party-first partisanship and like I said, neither side has clean hands here. My big point was the Mitch McConnell of all people does not get brownie points for following the rules as Lawnman implied. IMHO he is the worst offender of breaking the rules in the pursuit of raw partisan political power, but I also suspect that McConnell might actually take that as a compliment. Reid was a dirty old political fighter but McConnell did him one better in the end by stealing the Scalia SCOTUS seat.

27 minutes ago, HU&W said:

I'm convinced that both he and Obama thought it never would.  At a minimum, they felt they had 8 more years of helping the GOP adjust even more to the left before it did.

That's just not accurate.

History lesson: the Dems won control of the Senate in the 2006 midterms and picked up more seats in the 2008 presidential, which combined gave them a substantial majority. The GOP gained 6 back in the 2010 midterms, the Dems got +2 in the 2012 presidential, but the GOP got +9 in the 2014 midterms and re-took the chamber. They've been in power since then, but it's fairly likely that the Dems will be able to retake the Senate in the 2020 presidential, pending results of the upcoming 2018 midterms.

No serious political analyst or politician believes in thousand year reichs. They all know the pendulum swings back and forth as voters get fed up and want change. In fact that's exactly what drives the most political players to want to break the rules and use their power immediately, long-term consequences be damned...they'll all be gone anyways by time the chickens come home to roost.

Really, you generally don't accumulate power for power's sake, you build it up so you can get things done and if doing those things costs you the power, well I hope you swung for the fences. It's what the Dems got wrong with Obamacare (they tried to compromise and had to kowtow to conservative Dems not wanting to be too bold) and what the GOP got right when many of them sold their souls to support Trump, knowing they could justify all the indignities in exchange for conservatives on the Supreme Court, tax cuts, and "owning the Libs," all of which have already been delivered.

It's the same short-term thinking that causes publicly-traded companies to obsess over quarterly numbers to the detriment of workers and sometimes the long-term success of the business, and what causes shitty leaders in all places, including the AF, to do what's best for them and their next career move and care little for the real long-term consequences.

[HU&W]

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

That's just not accurate.

History lesson: the Dems won control of the Senate in the 2006 midterms and picked up more seats in the 2008 presidential, which combined gave them a substantial majority. The GOP gained 6 back in the 2010 midterms, the Dems got +2 in the 2012 presidential, but the GOP got +9 in the 2014 midterms and re-took the chamber. They've been in power since then, but it's fairly likely that the Dems will be able to retake the Senate in the 2020 presidential, pending results of the upcoming 2018 midterms.

No serious political analyst or politician believes in thousand year reichs. They all know the pendulum swings back and forth as voters get fed up and want change. In fact that's exactly what drives the most political players to want to break the rules and use their power immediately, long-term consequences be damned...they'll all be gone anyways by time the chickens come home to roost.

Really, you generally don't accumulate power for power's sake, you build it up so you can get things done and if doing those things costs you the power, well I hope you swung for the fences. It's what the Dems got wrong with Obamacare (they tried to compromise and had to kowtow to conservative Dems not wanting to be too bold) and what the GOP got right when many of them sold their souls to support Trump, knowing they could justify all the indignities in exchange for conservatives on the Supreme Court, tax cuts, and "owning the Libs," all of which have already been delivered.

It's the same short-term thinking that causes publicly-traded companies to obsess over quarterly numbers to the detriment of workers and sometimes the long-term success of the business, and what causes shitty leaders in all places, including the AF, to do what's best for them and their next career move and care little for the real long-term consequences.

NS, I'm struggling to respond.  You said my post wasn't accurate, then you described how the Obama admin knew better, but they did it anyway.  I'm in violent agreement with most of your post.  They academically knew better than trusting in their durable reich, but they overstepped anyway and created their own monster.

Edited August 20, 2018 by HU&W

[mcbush]

So, nobody wants to talk about POTUS’s former campaign manager and personal attorney both becoming felons yesterday?

Or about Cohen’s assertion under oath that he was directed to violate election law by his client, the Donald?

[MooseAg03]

Yep, I’d say that’s pretty bad. You’ll probably hear a lot of people argue that Obama also violated campaign finance laws and paid a $375k fine, but those were for missed reporting deadlines and delays in returning donations that were too large. Directing someone to break the law by paying a large sum in hush money is in a different league.

I’m convinced they are all crooks and if we had special investigations on every politician we could probably turn them all in to felons. Bring on the Convention of States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

35 minutes ago, mcbush said:

So, nobody wants to talk about POTUS’s former campaign manager and personal attorney both becoming felons yesterday?

Or about Cohen’s assertion under oath that he was directed to violate election law by his client, the Donald?

No, they’re too busy watching Fox News about that illegal killing that college girl and trying to craft a response somehow using Benghazi and emails at home. I wonder what the Hannity/Trump daily phone call tone was after the verdict and plead were announced...

A Marine Reservist Rep. Duncan Hunter from california and his wife we’re indicted yesterday for campaign fund misuse.

[brickhistory]

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." - Lavrentiy Beria, head of NKVD under Stalin

Which is ironic given that this whole thing investigating Trump is supposed to be about Russian, well...something regarding the 2016 election.

Yet not one person has been indicted for anything Russian.

Shady lawyers got caught doing shady things and are going to jail.  I'm not sad about them.

But how would you fare under the eye of a prosecutor who has an open-ended remit to investigate you, everyone around you, everyone around them, and so on?

If you're good with that, congratulations.

I'm agin' it.

But if you set up your own server and conducted years worth of government business including the trafficking of TS/SCI and above e-mails despite the specific law that says you can't operate that way, I also offer congratulations.

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Yet not one person has been indicted for anything Russian.

I mean, except for:

• Michael Flynn (pleaded guilty to lying about Russian contacts during the campaign)
• Rick Gates (pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States)
• George Papadopoulos (pleaded guilty to lying about contacts with Russians)
• 13 Russian nationals & 3 Russian companies (indicted for election interference), and
• 12 Russian military intelligence officers (indicted for hacking and related crimes during the 2016 election)

And that list totally takes newly-minted felon Paul Manafort off the table for the purposes of this discussion.

This info is all a very cursory overview from the #1 google return when you type in, "russia investigation indictments," and was published by Fox News yesterday. The full text of all of those indictments are also available to read online I believe.

So basically, other than all of those, you're right!

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

But how would you fare under the eye of a prosecutor who has an open-ended remit to investigate you, everyone around you, everyone around them, and so on?

I would hold up very well, never having committed any crimes more serious than traffic offenses and never having associated myself with shady-ass individuals. I'm assuming the same can be said for the vast majority of people reading this.