|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 15 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:
It's amazing how quickly long-time critics of intelligence are willing to throw that all away simply because they're willing to speak against Trump now. And how, seeing how bad what the Republicans did in Congress was, can't even consider how bad an idea it would be to repeat the exact same form of partisan hackery now that Democrats are the opposition.
It's an endless cycle. People blame everything bad that happened under Obama's watch on Bush ('it was Bush that destabilized the Middle East, its not Obama's fault he inherited a mess!'). And if you can't blame the opposition party, just blame a foreign power! It's a great way to never get any real change, and just have people blaming each other for everything that is wrong.
Meanwhile, this kind of stuff plays out in "politics" on a regular basis (this paper was pointed out to me by Kremlin propaganda, by the way, don't read it if you don't want to be brainwashed by the ex-KGB thug Vladimir Putin!). I'm quoting a part of the executive summary here:
Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen analyze the role political finance has played in securing the privileged positions of both high finance and big telecom. They show that prior studies have missed important streams of political money, and, more importantly, they show in detail how past studies have underestimathttp://imgur.com/ed the flow of political money into Congress.
The authors employ a data set that attempts to bring together all forms of campaign contributions from any source contributions to candidate campaign committees, party committees, 527s or “independent expenditures,” SuperPACs, etc., and aggregate them by final sources in a unified, systematic way.
To test the influence of money on financial regulation votes, they analyze the U.S. House of Representatives voting on measures to weaken the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Taking care to control as many factors as possible that could influence floor votes, they focus most of their attention on representatives who originally voted in favor of the bill and subsequently to dismantle key provisions of it. Because these are the same representatives, belonging to the same political party, in substantially the same districts, many factors normally advanced to explain vote shifts are ruled out from the start. The authors’ panel analysis highlights the importance played by time-varying factors, especially political money, in moving representatives to shift their positions on amendments such as the “swaps push out” alteration, which Senator Elizabeth Warren attempted to head off.
The authors test five votes from 2013 to 2015, finding the link between campaign contributions from the financial sector and switching to a pro-bank vote to be direct and substantial. The results indicate that for every $100,000 that Democratic representatives received from finance, the odds they would break with their party’s majority support for the Dodd-Frank legislation increased by 13.9 percent. Democratic representatives who voted in favor of finance often received $200,000–$300,000 from that sector, which raised the odds of switching by 25–40 percent.
Source
|
On May 15 2017 09:29 xDaunt wrote:
I'm ready for Trump to launch a full blown inquisition of the administrative state. Part of it must include clearing out the dead wood in his administration. I'm inclined to think that some of the establishment types (like Priebus) are part of the problem. What Trump has in place clearly isn't working for him, so he needs to clear the board and start over. The sooner he commits to this, the better.
Yup. What this dangerously understaffed administration needs is for more people to get fired... and then replaced with yes-men.
Not talking about Clapper. He should have been fired and thrown in jail ages ago.
|
On May 15 2017 15:59 Acrofales wrote:
Not talking about Clapper. He should have been fired and thrown in jail ages ago.
The way I see it is that one shithead (Clapper) is talking shit about another shithead (Trump). And we shouldn't forget why we didn't like the former in the first place even if the latter has become more relevant.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Sater
So, this is the name I keep hearing lately. And, if allegations that he was involved in Trump's campaign are true, then that's obviously bad. But the connections that are already here, in plain sight, show so much direct involvement between Trump and Russian oligarchy that... pffft. It's like we're really just waiting for some "official" to tell us it's okay to acknowledge this stuff, even though it's sitting on Wikipedia. Why isn't this being talked about, when the man just told us he doesn't have any involvement with Russians? This guy was all over Trump's projects. Multiple of them.
Directly connected to Putin. Indicted for mafia activity in NY in the 90's and now, just this year, he's negotiating with the Ukraine President for lifting Russian-sanctions, like he's a state-actor. Oh, and he just happens to be Trump's senior adviser in SoHo. Yeah. Cool.
I just don't think there's any way Trump lasts four years. I don't think he lasts one. Trump denies any involvement with Russian money? Well... just obviously not true. Just blatantly false. You have a Russian oligarch, who is negotiating with foreign governments on Russia's behalf, and he's building you a building... Firing the FBI director? Wow. Kind of seems like silly and audacious desperation. I just don't see plausible innocence in this. I see an obviously guilty person acting very obviously guilty.
I think the FBI has been compiling a long list of indictments, and that'll come forward soon. And then I think we're going to hear impeachment. Before 2018. And I think a lot of people in Congress, judging by interviews this weekend, are realizing it.
Just predictions.
If they're true, it will raise a lot of questions that should be asked regardless. What was the FBI supposed to do? Is it the FBI's place to come out mid-election and tell people they're voting for someone who "most likely" is legitimately criminal? What do they do when they have intelligence saying that a political candidate, who may likely win, is deeply corrupted? There isn't really a solid answer to these questions, it seems to me.
|
Good grief. So either he is too stupid to understand reality, or his aides realize this is what keeps him from going off the deep end.
|
What a sad article to read. History will not look kindly on this administration. Our very own Nero. Sad!
|
I swear, Trump behaves like a dog. You can just lead him by the nose, and everybody's doing it. I wonder how long it's been since the man had a thought he could call his own.
|
Norway28795 Posts
But he's the creative genius behind the prime the pump phrase..
|
They should pass him some purpose written articles of how presidents that have stepped down enjoy the best life and are the most revered and loved. Maybe he'll quit.
|
On May 15 2017 21:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But he's the creative genius behind the prime the pump phrase..
I suppose we should be getting ready for operation Deep Throat MKII then.
|
interesting that according to the letter to McGahn from
congress that Trump literally committed a provable crime in the way of threatening a potential witness, and that this gets no attention from either the left or right.
i mean there's no debate here since he did it from his own twitter account. but nobody's gonna jump on that? what have i missed?
|
It seems pretty open and close to me, but the Trump supporters will say it doesn't matter because we can't actually take his words to mean anything and regardless of his intent, which isn't important because it isn't, the investigation won't be hindered by it.
|
President Donald Trump and his White House have been adamant: There's absolutely no need for a special prosecutor to investigate the ties between his 2016 campaign and Russian intelligence operatives.
At the moment, Congressional Republicans -- at least the bulk of them -- seem content to go along with Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted last week on the Senate floor that "too much is at stake" to appoint a special prosecutor, adding that such an appointment would "only serve to impede the current work being done to not only discover what the Russians may have done but also to let this body and the national security community develop counter measures."
The public very much disagrees, according to new numbers from a NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday. Almost eight in ten people -- 78% -- said they would prefer an investigation led by an independent prosecutor or independent commission. Just 15% said they preferred an investigation led by Congress.
www.cnn.com
|
United States43972 Posts
On May 15 2017 13:11 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:
It's amazing how quickly long-time critics of intelligence are willing to throw that all away simply because they're willing to speak against Trump now. And how, seeing how bad what the Republicans did in Congress was, can't even consider how bad an idea it would be to repeat the exact same form of partisan hackery now that Democrats are the opposition. It's an endless cycle. People blame everything bad that happened under Obama's watch on Bush ('it was Bush that destabilized the Middle East, its not Obama's fault he inherited a mess!'). And if you can't blame the opposition party, just blame a foreign power! It's a great way to never get any real change, and just have people blaming each other for everything that is wrong.
Oddly enough Obama did somewhat break the cycle. A third of Republicans polled in Louisiana think that Obama should have done more to help them in the immediate aftermath of the 2005 hurricane.
|
On May 15 2017 23:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2017 13:11 a_flayer wrote:On May 15 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:
It's amazing how quickly long-time critics of intelligence are willing to throw that all away simply because they're willing to speak against Trump now. And how, seeing how bad what the Republicans did in Congress was, can't even consider how bad an idea it would be to repeat the exact same form of partisan hackery now that Democrats are the opposition. It's an endless cycle. People blame everything bad that happened under Obama's watch on Bush ('it was Bush that destabilized the Middle East, its not Obama's fault he inherited a mess!'). And if you can't blame the opposition party, just blame a foreign power! It's a great way to never get any real change, and just have people blaming each other for everything that is wrong. Oddly enough Obama did somewhat break the cycle. A third of Republicans polled in Louisiana think that Obama should have done more to help them in the immediate aftermath of the 2005 hurricane.
are you talking about bush?
|
United States43972 Posts
On May 15 2017 23:54 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2017 23:50 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2017 13:11 a_flayer wrote:On May 15 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:
It's amazing how quickly long-time critics of intelligence are willing to throw that all away simply because they're willing to speak against Trump now. And how, seeing how bad what the Republicans did in Congress was, can't even consider how bad an idea it would be to repeat the exact same form of partisan hackery now that Democrats are the opposition. It's an endless cycle. People blame everything bad that happened under Obama's watch on Bush ('it was Bush that destabilized the Middle East, its not Obama's fault he inherited a mess!'). And if you can't blame the opposition party, just blame a foreign power! It's a great way to never get any real change, and just have people blaming each other for everything that is wrong. Oddly enough Obama did somewhat break the cycle. A third of Republicans polled in Louisiana think that Obama should have done more to help them in the immediate aftermath of the 2005 hurricane. are you talking about bush?
No. A third of Louisiana Republicans polled believe that Obama did not do enough to help them in the immediate aftermath of the 2005 hurricane.
|
Canada13407 Posts
On May 15 2017 23:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2017 13:11 a_flayer wrote:On May 15 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:
It's amazing how quickly long-time critics of intelligence are willing to throw that all away simply because they're willing to speak against Trump now. And how, seeing how bad what the Republicans did in Congress was, can't even consider how bad an idea it would be to repeat the exact same form of partisan hackery now that Democrats are the opposition. It's an endless cycle. People blame everything bad that happened under Obama's watch on Bush ('it was Bush that destabilized the Middle East, its not Obama's fault he inherited a mess!'). And if you can't blame the opposition party, just blame a foreign power! It's a great way to never get any real change, and just have people blaming each other for everything that is wrong. Oddly enough Obama did somewhat break the cycle. A third of Republicans polled in Louisiana think that Obama should have done more to help them in the immediate aftermath of the 2005 hurricane.
This kind of thing completely blows my mind.
How detached from reality do you need to be to make that kind of claim.
Seriously. Its almost as bad as that 9-11 where was Obama clip floating around the net.
|
On May 15 2017 23:56 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2017 23:50 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2017 13:11 a_flayer wrote:On May 15 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:
It's amazing how quickly long-time critics of intelligence are willing to throw that all away simply because they're willing to speak against Trump now. And how, seeing how bad what the Republicans did in Congress was, can't even consider how bad an idea it would be to repeat the exact same form of partisan hackery now that Democrats are the opposition. It's an endless cycle. People blame everything bad that happened under Obama's watch on Bush ('it was Bush that destabilized the Middle East, its not Obama's fault he inherited a mess!'). And if you can't blame the opposition party, just blame a foreign power! It's a great way to never get any real change, and just have people blaming each other for everything that is wrong. Oddly enough Obama did somewhat break the cycle. A third of Republicans polled in Louisiana think that Obama should have done more to help them in the immediate aftermath of the 2005 hurricane. This kind of thing completely blows my mind. How detached from reality do you need to be to make that kind of claim. Seriously. Its almost as bad as that 9-11 where was Obama clip floating around the net.
This is what happens when you run against a person and demonize everything they attempt. We are in a cycle of this right now, and it will take someone really rising above the fray to end it. We blame the presidents for causing it, but the real problem is in Congress, and by extension the voters.
|
On May 15 2017 23:56 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2017 23:50 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2017 13:11 a_flayer wrote:On May 15 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:
It's amazing how quickly long-time critics of intelligence are willing to throw that all away simply because they're willing to speak against Trump now. And how, seeing how bad what the Republicans did in Congress was, can't even consider how bad an idea it would be to repeat the exact same form of partisan hackery now that Democrats are the opposition. It's an endless cycle. People blame everything bad that happened under Obama's watch on Bush ('it was Bush that destabilized the Middle East, its not Obama's fault he inherited a mess!'). And if you can't blame the opposition party, just blame a foreign power! It's a great way to never get any real change, and just have people blaming each other for everything that is wrong. Oddly enough Obama did somewhat break the cycle. A third of Republicans polled in Louisiana think that Obama should have done more to help them in the immediate aftermath of the 2005 hurricane. This kind of thing completely blows my mind. How detached from reality do you need to be to make that kind of claim. Seriously. Its almost as bad as that 9-11 where was Obama clip floating around the net.
it's been amply documented that people on all sides make lots of very very basic factual errors on things like this.
if you want detailed examples there'd be more in the book in my sig.
|
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough believes President Donald Trump fired FBI director James Comey because he sensed the investigation was getting close to revealing whatever criminal actions he’s trying to hide.
...
“The FBI has started pulling that string, and they are still pulling that string where it leads is not just an election issue, it is a criminal issue — and Trump knows that,” Scarborough said.
...
Scarborough said he’s heard from FBI sources that the investigation had gathered steam in recent weeks, and he said Comey was fired in response to that development.
“They have already found the string and they are pulling on it, based on my contacts inside the FBI and they are starting to tug on that string, and they are going to keep tugging, keeping going, and it’s accelerated because of the way he fired Comey, and he knows it,” Scarborough said.
www.rawstory.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
