US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9085

On October 30 2017 08:58 Danglars wrote:


The last four pages show that the only thread objection part of “Trump campaign-Russia collusion” is “Trump campaign.” When Clinton campaign figures lie about financing the dossier, no fucks are given. I mean they even throw the NYT reporting under the bus (Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel were previously esteemed). You might deny that collusion with Russia is a one-way Street, but your actions show differently. Next time, play up some angle you wouldn’t mind criticizing a Democrat campaign on. You’ll emerge with more credibility that way.

On October 30 2017 09:07 Doodsmack wrote:


Very shoddy reasoning and conclusion. Russia wanted Trump to win. Russia engaged in full scale efforts to help Trump win. Russia did not do the same with Clinton. Some people on the Clinton campaign lied about who paid for the oppo research. That does not bear on whether there was collusion between the Clinton camp and Russia to help Clinton win.

On October 30 2017 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:


We know Russia wanted to disrupt our political system, we don't know Russia wanted (or expected in their wildest dreams) that Trump would win.

On October 30 2017 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Every time this gets rehashed I'm desperate to understand why this instance in particular is so significant for people. It's not like we don't collude with foreign political groups to influence elections regularly.

It really seems like everyone is freaking out about 21st century technology lowering the economic barriers to entry and a country that doesn't have our best interest being able to use it against us.

Like there isn't an actual principled stand people are taking, it seems completely driven by self-interest and political point scoring on all sides.

The irony of it all being Russia seems to have a better grasp of what's wrong with our politics than we do.

On October 30 2017 09:10 Doodsmack wrote:


Are you relying on the intel community for this assertion? The intel community says Russia wanted to help Trump win.

On October 30 2017 09:10 zlefin wrote:

are you actually desperate to understand it? or is that rhetorical, and you fully understand it, but disagree with the reasons for it?
i.e. do you need an explanation for something or not; it's hard to tell.

On October 30 2017 08:56 xDaunt wrote:

Maybe someday you'll learn how to properly contextualize information. What I'm quoting is irrelevant. It's just an opinion that I very easily could have presented as my own. But hey, keep working that double standard of yours. I look forward to continuing to not see you call out every poster who pushes assertions suggesting that Trump colluded with the Russians beyond what is actually known.

And again, I can't help it if y'all refuse to read what is right in front of you. I didn't say that the Clinton campaign lied. The reporters did. It's really obvious to me why they used that word. It should be obvious to you as well, but y'all would rather pretend to be ostriches and keep your heads in the sand.

On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?

“Breaking the ice, I mention some news of the day—that Trey Gowdy appears likely to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The previous chairman, Jason Chaffetz, had abruptly announced his resignation from Congress; House conservatives had hoped that Jim Jordan, a senior member on the committee, might pursue the chairmanship. Boehner grins. ‘Gowdy—that’s my guy, even though he doesn’t know how to dress,’ he says. Then Boehner leans back in his chair. ‘Fuck Jordan. Fuck Chaffetz. They’re both assholes.'”
Boehner’s beef with Chaffetz, who would later join Fox News as a paid contributor, is not personal—just that he’s a “total phony” who possessed legislative talent but focused mostly on self-promotion. “With Chaffetz,” Boehner says, “it’s always about Chaffetz.”

His problems with Jordan, the founding chairman of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, run much deeper. To Boehner and his allies, Jordan was the antagonist in the story of his speakership—an embodiment of the brinkmanship and betrayal that roiled the House Republican majority and made Boehner’s life miserable. Although he would tell me in later conversations that he holds no grudges against anyone, today Boehner unloads on his fellow Ohioan. “Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate,” Boehner says. “A terrorist. A legislative terrorist.”


[...]

Boehner was running out of patience. The day before, Reid had blasted him from the Senate floor, saying he ran the House like a dictator. “I don’t do angry. Nobody on my staff has ever seen me angry,” Boehner tells me. “But that little son of a bitch got under my skin.” When he arrived at the White House for a meeting with the president and congressional leaders, Boehner spotted Reid talking with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “I walked right up to him and said, ‘Harry, you can go fuck yourself. You ever listen to that shit that comes out of your mouth?’” Boehner imitates a flustered Reid, then adds: “I thought McConnell was going to have a heart attack.”


Cantor’s loss triggered a leadership shuffle: McCarthy was promoted to majority leader, and Scalise was elected whip. The new chief deputy whip, McHenry—who admits to being “a bomb-thrower” his first three years in Congress and viewing Boehner as a nincompoop—tells me his view changed upon joining the speaker at his daily management meetings. “I’m in there and it’s this realization—Oh, wait a second. Boehner does actually care about policy. He understands the dynamics of the conference. He understands where all these different groups are.” He laughs. “Like, who is this guy?” McHenry wishes other conservatives had his vantage point. “He could see through opportunities without having to make the 50 or 75 phone calls that I made.”

On the golf course in Ohio, Boehner singles out McHenry as an example of how some lawmakers mature after initially acting like “anarchists.” He also makes a prediction: “McHenry’s going to be the speaker one day.”

Boehner worries about the deepening fissures in American society. But he sees Trump as more of a symptom than the cause of what is a longer arc of social and ideological alienation, fueled by talk radio and Fox News on the right and MSNBC and social media on the left. “People thought in ’09, ’10, ’11, that the country couldn’t be divided more. And you go back to Obama’s campaign in 2008, you know, he was talking about the divide and healing the country and all of that. And some would argue on the right that he did more to divide the country than to unite it. I kind of reject that notion.” Why is that? “Because it wasn’t him!” Boehner replies. “It was modern-day media, and social media, that kept pushing people further right and further left. People started to figure out … they could choose where to get their news. And so what do people do? They choose places they agree with, reinforcing the divide.”

He continues: “I always liked Rush [Limbaugh]. When I went to Palm Beach I would always meet with Rush and we’d go play golf. But you know, who was that right-wing guy, [Mark] Levin? He went really crazy right and got a big audience, and he dragged [Sean] Hannity to the dark side. He dragged Rush to the dark side. And these guys—I used to talk to them all the time. And suddenly they’re beating the living shit out of me.” Boehner, seated in his favorite recliner, lights another cigarette. “I had a conversation with Hannity, probably about the beginning of 2015. I called him and said, ‘Listen, you’re nuts.’ We had this really blunt conversation. Things were better for a few months, and then it got back to being the same-old, same-old. Because I wasn’t going to be a right-wing idiot.”

On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.

On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.

On October 30 2017 09:41 doomsmacker wrote:


Russia interfering in US politics is expected. But to argue that they didn't bet on a horse is kind of disingenuous since, like the USA, you typically interfere in US politics to get a political party/candidate that you like and best suits your foreign policy goals.

Considering how much of a boner Trump has for Russia and how easily he's influenced by the red carpet treatment (eg. France's military parade, Saudi Arabia throwing gold and money at him), he's clearly the candidate you want if you want the US to get off your back.

On October 30 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:

which "this instance" are you referring to? there's been a whole bunch of different related stuff in thread, and i'm not sure which part(s) you're talking about. I mean, there's trump/russia stuff, clinton/russia stuff, trump subordinate/russia stuff, other russia election actions not linked with any particular campaign.

this will seem slow and pedantic, but I operate best when using precision.

On October 30 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:

which "this instance" are you referring to? there's been a whole bunch of different related stuff in thread, and i'm not sure which part(s) you're talking about. I mean, there's trump/russia stuff, clinton/russia stuff, trump subordinate/russia stuff, other russia election actions not linked with any particular campaign.

this will seem slow and pedantic, but I operate best when using precision.

On October 30 2017 09:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Rough summary of GH's opinion is:

1) Everyone in politics does this all the time, everyone is hypocrites for caring about Trump doing this.
2) The entire system is broken, burn it down and replace it.

And my rebuttal to that is these rules and regulations may have loopholes and doublespeak, but that's why you build and improve on them. Any replacement system is going to be just as flawed, or worse, in the beginning. But if you don't actually enforce the laws and rules that do exist, it's meaningless to even talk about making new ones.

On October 30 2017 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:


I would suspect Putin could identify Trump as a lying idiot pretty quickly and that he would be ineffective at getting anything done, and if anything, Trump winning has turned anti-Russia media up 10 notches.

We could assume Putin wanted Trump to win, but we don't know that was his intention (and would have been labeled a futile and crazy plan by anyone saying it's what he intended before the election)

On October 30 2017 09:59 doomsmacker wrote:


He's a lying idiot but he's also a guy who sees nothing wrong with a little bit of quid pro quo. He's doing it with regards to China behind the scenes (Kushner debt forgiveness, Ivanka's shoe factories and vanishing audits) but few people are really reporting it because he's not bringing attention to it. Trump gets away with the most things when he shuts up and stays quiet.

The Russia allegations only really went overdrive after the fired Comey, after it was reported that he was turning up the Russia election meddling investigation, because no one really bought his reason for doing so. If he had said "sure OK, investigate me I'm innocent", you could dismiss anti-Russia allegations pretty easily.

Russia, from the dossier to Trump's business ties to his own personal relationships with Russians, has a lot to gain from a pro-Russia presidential candidate (or as pro as a US president can be). This is a guy who sees nothing wrong with their actions in Ukraine and clearly doesn't want to do anything about implementing additional sanctions.