What's new
By:
Filters

White House Discord: Bob Woodward Book, NYT Op-Ed

babe said:
Of course, Bullets comment about how moderate politics doesn't make the news is spot on. But you have me wondering here..... I'm pretty much agin death penalty for sexual offenses but I agree insurance carriers could make life better for people, and earn great returns on their investments, if they allowed people to contract as small groups or households on standard measures of risk. Corporates could negotiate similar terms for their employee benefits, and we'd all be better off.

If you're saying you have these views, I applaud the fact that you care that much.
Click to expand...

I’m not talking any sexual crime. I mean adults and small children. Or the guy breaking into a house, assault long the women and getting his at knife point. For those people, death.

As for my insurance comment. I mean why the hell not?! Can anyone give me one good reason I cannot agree to pay the insurance it’s for my neighbor or the old widow down the street or whatever? If an insurance company and I agree to the terms...
 
Stoked said:
I’m not talking any sexual crime. I mean adults and small children. Or the guy breaking into a house, assault long the women and getting his at knife point. For those people, death.

As for my insurance comment. I mean why the hell not?! Can anyone give me one good reason I cannot agree to pay the insurance it’s for my neighbor or the old widow down the street or whatever? If an insurance company and I agree to the terms...
Click to expand...




I think I agreed with your idea of contract.

Death penalty issues require a level of faith in our legal professions and courts I just don't really believe. Child abuse ruins lives too, but if people live they can and sometimes do heal.

Just like, if we elect a doofuss as Pres, it's only 4 years and pretty much we will live. We lived through 8 years of Obama. 12 years of Bushs.
 
babe said:
I think I agreed with your idea of contract.

Death penalty issues require a level of faith in our legal professions and courts I just don't really believe. Child abuse ruins lives too, but if people live they can and sometimes do heal.
Click to expand...

Imo the only ones worthy of that chance are the victims in these scenarios. I agree the bar should be high, but add them.

No amount of discussion will change my mind on that issue.
 
@Stoked, thank you for making me think. It's caused me to refine my rant, lol. Forthwith...

Repudiate our allies, embrace the man who interfered in our sovereignty and election, embrace dictators in general. Repudiate immigrants(Steven Miller is taking aim at all immigrants, not just undocumented). Repudiate minority races. Repudiate science, elevate conspiracy theory. Repudiate green energy, put coal first, elevate all fossil fuels. Describe wind power as bird killers. Repudiate better fuel standards for automobiles, worsen air pollution, worsen global warming.

These are just some of the actions and attitude, acted on by, and characteristic of, Trump. The GOP will not stand up to these things. Clinton would not have repeated any of the above. And I would not be reeling from all these things had Trump not been elected. What difference does the party make where the above actions are concerned? That's what I need to know, and do know. Do you think if Trump were a Democrat that I would be any less opposed to the above? If the Republicans tacitly or overtly approve of the above, and the Democrats reject it, how can I not support the Democrats? If rejecting the above is important to me, then the Democrats are acting in my interest. And the above takes priority to me. What someone else prioritizes doesn't interest me. I'm interested in my own vote.

These are differences that weigh far heavier in terms of importance to me, not whether partisanship rules the day. I can worry about that another day. It's about policy, not party. Telling me I have blinders on about political pros of both parties, and that I am supposed to recognize that failed promises, partisanship, whatever, is the status quo these many years, regardless of party, and that this understanding tells me all I need to know, well, that tells me that someone else has blinders on where all of the above is concerned. And all of the above is what matters to me. Nobody can tell me how I should or should not interpret the current scene. I'm not naive, in need of removing blinders. I just have priorities that have to come first.

And it's an easy choice. Hard to see how it could be easier. No contest at all. Nobody has to agree. Those are my priorities. I'll leave the blinders on if that's what's called for. First things first.

Someone I greatly admire, Tom Engelhardt, wrote an essay last week describing what Trump will be remembered for. He speaks for me, as far as I am concerned.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176464/tomgram:_engelhardt,_history,_memory,_and_donald_trump/

And that is where I stand on Donald Trump. Tom took the words out of my mouth...
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
You sound kind of proud of him. And really impressed
Click to expand...
Not sure where you're getting the proud part. As for impressed, I think amazed is a better word. I'm amazed that he can accomplish anything, let alone a lot, in the chaotic environment he is facing (partly of his own making, but also very much fueled by those who hate him). I certainly don't admire him.

I have said this for a long time on this site and feel like I've been consistently misunderstood. Trump is not the sort of guy I want to be president of this country, but he is nowhere near as bad as his haters are truing to make him out to be. They take every quote and action and then interpret it in the worst possible way. Watching CNN and MSNBC it often feels like the pundits are in an unspoken competition to see who can come up with the most nefarious possible explanation. This overreaction by the haters is playing to Trump's advantage with some people. It is clear that a lot of these people hate everything Trump does or says purely for political reasons. They are okay with breaking virtually any rule in order to take him down. They are okay with any breach of ethics so long as it's committed by a liberal player. The situation is really quite laughable.

Here is an example: It has become absolutely clear that Peter Strozk was utilizing his position in the FBI to protect Hillary and harm Trump. There is indisputable proof that he was purposely leaking information to the press in order to accomplish both those objectives. If you are unaware of this truth it is entirely because you are only watching press that wants to protect the liberal agenda.

Now, please see if you can find a single liberal commentator who cares? You can easily find examples of liberals calling Strozk a hero. You can't find anyone calling him out for utilizing the FBI for his own purposes. Just imagine the outrage if we ever discover that a prominent member of the intelligence community is leaking to the media in order to harm a liberal politician. Saying that they would go bonkers is an understatement.
 
The ends justify the means
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Here is an example: It has become absolutely clear that Peter Strozk was utilizing his position in the FBI to protect Hillary and harm Trump. There is indisputable proof that he was purposely leaking information to the press in order to accomplish both those objectives. If you are unaware of this truth it is entirely because you are only watching press that wants to protect the liberal agenda.
Click to expand...

For those of us not following whatever media you follow, please lay out the indisputable proof (naturally, that means there is a specific action you can point to). I'm aware of text messages (which got plenty of play in the liberal media), but nothing else.
 
One Brow said:
For those of us not following whatever media you follow, please lay out the indisputable proof (naturally, that means there is a specific action you can point to). I'm aware of text messages (which got plenty of play in the liberal media), but nothing else.
Click to expand...
There are messages where Page is telling Strozk about stories to be leaked and identifying the media being leaked to, and then Strozk is congratulating her when those stories actually come out. It's pretty clear what was going on. The "media leak strategy" that they were discussing in previously released texts was clearly not a strategy to prevent leaks as Strozk's attorney has laughably claimed, but a strategy to create leaks. If whatever media you follow isn't informing you about this stuff then it might be time to broaden your sources.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
There are messages where Page is telling Strozk about stories to be leaked and identifying the media being leaked to, and then Strozk is congratulating her when those stories actually come out. It's pretty clear what was going on. The "media leak strategy" that they were discussing in previously released texts was clearly not a strategy to prevent leaks as Strozk's attorney has laughably claimed, but a strategy to create leaks. If whatever media you follow isn't informing you about this stuff then it might be time to broaden your sources.
Click to expand...

Please lay out how any leak protected Hillary; that is, what was the threat, and how did that leak prevent the threat from occurring?
 
I didn't say the garbage man is trying to Make the world better. It is just to remove garbage.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Well said. This has been my stance for a long time. I think countries with multiple viable political parties have better representation as a whole because it can shift in multiple directions and allow multiple different viewpoints. In our country you largely get 2, and those are becoming worse and worse.

Abortion for all / No abortion for anyone
Guns for everyone / no guns for anyone
Tax the rich / Feed the rich

We do end up with policy that reflects some middle ground, but largely we miss out on the best solutions because everyone is so caught up in their end of the dichotomy. IMO we have become more and more extreme in political views among our politicians, while the populace generally have remained largely in the middle ground on the issues that really affect them. I also think the rise of social media has had a huge influence on the political spectrum, allowing mob mentality to enlist people in their homes instead of trying to reach people through traditional news media. It allows hysteria to reign instead of some semblance of reason and balance.

And we have never been more divided as a nation politically.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rowing-partisan-divide-over-political-values/

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507#pone-0123507-g002

Here is a plot of congressional voting along party lines over time:

image


But to me this is a chicken and egg scenario. Is the middle really shrinking, and the populace in generally moving toward the extremes, so they are voting in more extreme candidates? Or is the political machine only putting forward extreme candidates, so people adopt their views to justify their votes, or vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" since that is all that is presented? Do the politicians affect the political atmosphere in American more, or does the populace?

Here is another interesting article:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-politics-poll-democrats-republicans/1965431/



I hope he is right and that this will work itself out, and I also hope we can somehow minimize the damage done in the meantime. Frankly I find it frightening that a person like Donald Trump would even ever be taken seriously as a candidate, let alone elected, and I wish it would function as a wake-up call that we have slipped over the edge and are hanging on by our fingertips. But I am afraid we have become lemmings to the political demagogues and so we will rush headlong over the cliff, blissfully ignoring the dangers while we smugly "win" arguments in nebulous internet forums and 45 character tweets.
Click to expand...

The slow death of the Blue Dogs is evidence enough. Trump has given them opportunity to regain prominence (regaining D seats in areas he surprised in) and moderate the process once again - "big tent" democrats hate them for it - but even they aren't expecting a lasting resurgence. They are out best hope for any semblance of a third party, or a home for someone like me. Oh well.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
There are messages where Page is telling Strozk about stories to be leaked and identifying the media being leaked to, and then Strozk is congratulating her when those stories actually come out. It's pretty clear what was going on. The "media leak strategy" that they were discussing in previously released texts was clearly not a strategy to prevent leaks as Strozk's attorney has laughably claimed, but a strategy to create leaks. If whatever media you follow isn't informing you about this stuff then it might be time to broaden your sources.
Click to expand...
Are you going to actually provide links to this?
 
Stoked said:
Intent does not always guarantee outcome.

But even if it was to help trump the principle is the same. Do we really want the FBI coordinating leaks to the press for political reasons?
Click to expand...

Really, I doubt you'll love this answer, but it's History that will judge all this. It depends in part at what Mueller delivers to Rosenstein, whether Rosenstein decides to release what Mueller brings to the public, whether he then turns it over to Congress and what happens at that point. Everything that is happening,and happened, is part of a story that we don't really know the full outline as yet. I mean, if Trump turned out to be an actual asset of Putin and Russia, the judgement on these FBI agents will not be the same as if the whole thing was truly a nothingburger.

There were plenty of loyalists during our War of Independence. They may have thought, have judged, that the colonists forming Committees of Correspondence to coordinate responses to actions by the Crown, (in that instance, forming the Committees was one reaction to the Crown demanding that the colonists who burned the HMS Gaspee in 1772 be turned over to the Crown) were acting as traitors. Yet, as we know History judged quite differently, as a new nation was born.

Until we know how this plays out, we really don't know how History will judge all the players, large and small. Sure, on the surface, you can say well, we don't want FBI agents acting politically, but until we know what actually happened in the 2016 election, we citizens are still largely in the dark, and History's judgement is only clearest in hindsight. Time will tell, but I understand if these arguments fall on deaf ears or if they are rejected as disingenuous somehow.
 
Last edited:
Red said:
Really, I doubt you'll love this answer, but it's History that will judge all this. It depends in part at what Mueller delivers to Rosenstein, whether Rosenstein decides to release what Mueller brings to the public, whether he then turns it over to Congress and what happens at that point. Everything that is happening,and happened, is part of a story that we don't really know the full outline as yet. I mean, if Trump turned out to be an actual asset of Putin and Russia, the judgement on these FBI agents will not be the same as if the whole thing was truly a nothingburger.

There were plenty of loyalists during our War of Independence. They may have thought, have judged, that the colonists forming Committees of Correspondence to coordinate responses to actions by the Crown, (in that instance, forming the Committees was one reaction to the Crown demanding that the colonists who burned the HMS Gaspee in 1772 be turned over to the Crown) were acting as traitors. Yet, as we know History judged quite differently, as a new nation was born.

Until we know how this plays out, we really don't know how History will judge all the players, large and small. Sure, on the surface, you can say well, we don't want FBI agents acting politically, but until we know what actually happened in the 2016 election, we citizens are still largely in the dark, and History's judgement is only clearest in hindsight. Time will tell, but I understand if these arguments fall on deaf ears or if they are rejected as disingenuous somehow.
Click to expand...
Plus it’s not the FBI coordinating leaks but rather two rogue agents. It is true though, history will judge their actions. It was, after all, a rogue FBI special agent (Mark Felt/Deep Throat) who coordinated leaks to Woodward and Bernstein (really just Woodward) and brought down Nixon over Watergate. History judges him pretty well. It is easy to take the comparison too far though. These two current leakers seem a little loopy and much more partisan than Felt.
 
Neither of those stories support your assertion there Joe. Although the fox News one does bend over backwards trying to insinuate that talking about leaks is the same thing as being responsible for them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top