|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 17 2019 02:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:28 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 17 2019 01:38 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2019 18:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 16 2019 16:05 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2019 11:44 Doodsmack wrote:
So this guy Kilimnik, who is allegedly connected to Russian intelligence and who Manafort shared polling data with, wanted to shop a Ukraine peace plan. Trumps team made changes to the Republican platform at the convention that favored russia over Ukraine. And trump publicly requested Russia's hacking assistance at a press conference. Manafort and stone worked with trump since the 70s or 80s. Manafort's slogan in 2012 for his Ukraine politician client was "Make Ukraine Great Again." Manafort owned an apartment in trump tower. This investigation is just a hoax right?
This "weakened the platform" stuff is rediculous at this point. Here is what was changed. "We therefore support maintaining (and, if warranted, increasing) sanctions against Russia until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored," Denman's proposed amendment read. "We also support providing lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine's armed forces and greater coordination with NATO on defense planning. Simultaneously, we call for increased financial aid for Ukraine, as well as greater assistance in the economic and humanitarian spheres, including government reform and anti-corruption."
Denman's amendment also included an introductory paragraph filled with a lot of generic rhetoric. When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." They left intact Denman's language on NATO, and on continued and possibly tougher sanctions on Russia.
The final, Trump-approved passage read: "We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning." That was the amendment the committee approved.
In the end, nothing was taken out of the party's original draft platform on Russia. At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. It was also made tougher with Denman's reference to "NATO defense planning," which had not been in the original draft. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-what-really-happened-with-the-gop-platform-and-russiaAlso, it should be noted that Trump has, in fact, sold lethal weapons to Ukraine. It’s an opinion peace, take it with a grain of salt that lacks any manafort. that's the laziest dismissal and makes it look like you didnt even read it. York is a well known Republican columnist and actually, you know, talked to people. It's under "opinion" because it's his column space. It’s under opinion because he be as bias as he wants. This would never pass as a featured article because it has no real foundation. I actually read it but it’s not worth my time to debate over. he relates what actually happened. holy...it's under opinion because he's not a reporter. yet, as a well known writer on his side, he can talk to people. In the story he quotes the delegate that added the language about lethal weapons. This is a regular occurrence all over the place, by the way. they added all that other strong language as well, which is something no one knows because it's never part of the story. This is willfully disbelieving something because you'd prefer that it's not true. On February 17 2019 02:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:02 Introvert wrote:
Read the article again, the platform was stronger than the one in 2012 and they changed one phrase (originally proposed by a single delegate), while adding some harsher ones.
The only "softening" was between drafts. It's a non story. especially considering that Trump has done the thing that was described by the first draft language. Given that between 2012 and 2016 Russia made military incursions into Ukrainian territory, I would sure as hell hope that the 2016 platform draft was stronger than the 2012 one on the Russia-Ukraine issue. Making the benchmark "was the end 2016 platform tougher than the 2012 one" is a fascinating obfuscation here. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." (also, the conceit that stripped out an entire undisclosed preamble that is not quoted from in a draft on a subject shouldn't be perceived as weakening is fascinating to me) The idea that a delegate proposes some language to a platform, that isn't public yet, and isn't the party's official position, and that counts as a news story is amazing. Changing "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is a legitimate change. It didn't weaken the platform because the part about lethal weapons was never in the platform. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." in particular this part is bad. No one said Trump strengthened it. The GOP strengthened it, with input and consultation with the Trump campaign. There is no way a change this small should be a recurring meme almost over two years later, but it's such a lazy talking point no one wants to let it go. You realize the article says: At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. Yet it also says: When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." Their intervention on the chunk was to "take out the throat-clearing introduction" (also referred to dismissively in that opinion piece, never quoted from) and change the language. To pitch this as "the Trump campaign approved making the platform tougher" rather than "the Trump campaign only approved a watered-down version of additions to the platform" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. And please do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself by bringing up the 2012 platform's position on Russia in general (not the Ukraine) written before Russia performed military incursions into Ukraine. Look at 2012 if you want a throat clearing introduction. To ignore everything else in there then say it was "watered down" when the SINGLE policy language change requested by the Trump campaign was "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. + Show Spoiler +Especially in light of the fact that this administration has provided lethal weapons to Ukraine.
You seem confused about what (most) of the news articles are saying. No wonder, since you keep babbling about 2012. The position was not watered down relative to 2012 so of course it wasn't watered down by the Trump campaign. That would have been an egregious error in judgment. It wasn't even watered down relative to the original draft by the Trump campaign (if I believe an anonymous insider source with likely ulterior motives, which I will for now).
But a proposed (and accepted) amendment was watered down at the Trump campaign's request. They nuked a preamble (that the anonymous source wasn't kind enough to tell us, despite leaking multiple other parts, I wonder why) and requested a policy edit. The Trump campaign made an active choice to weaken the final GOP platform on Ukraine 2016 from what it would have been otherwise. This is fact, even per your own cited article. To obfuscate this, it places a variety of other benchmarks we should be rating the 2016 platform against-all poor counterfactuals for the question "what would have happened if they hadn't called New York?"
+ Show Spoiler +And those arms probably have something to do with the situation deteriorating further in the three years since anything was watered down, as well as Manafort's untimely departure
|
On February 17 2019 03:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 02:58 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:28 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 17 2019 01:38 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2019 18:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 16 2019 16:05 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2019 11:44 Doodsmack wrote:So this guy Kilimnik, who is allegedly connected to Russian intelligence and who Manafort shared polling data with, wanted to shop a Ukraine peace plan. Trumps team made changes to the Republican platform at the convention that favored russia over Ukraine. And trump publicly requested Russia's hacking assistance at a press conference. Manafort and stone worked with trump since the 70s or 80s. Manafort's slogan in 2012 for his Ukraine politician client was "Make Ukraine Great Again." Manafort owned an apartment in trump tower. This investigation is just a hoax right? https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1096578061619920896https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1096582646786912256 This "weakened the platform" stuff is rediculous at this point. Here is what was changed. "We therefore support maintaining (and, if warranted, increasing) sanctions against Russia until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored," Denman's proposed amendment read. "We also support providing lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine's armed forces and greater coordination with NATO on defense planning. Simultaneously, we call for increased financial aid for Ukraine, as well as greater assistance in the economic and humanitarian spheres, including government reform and anti-corruption."
Denman's amendment also included an introductory paragraph filled with a lot of generic rhetoric. When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." They left intact Denman's language on NATO, and on continued and possibly tougher sanctions on Russia.
The final, Trump-approved passage read: "We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning." That was the amendment the committee approved.
In the end, nothing was taken out of the party's original draft platform on Russia. At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. It was also made tougher with Denman's reference to "NATO defense planning," which had not been in the original draft. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-what-really-happened-with-the-gop-platform-and-russiaAlso, it should be noted that Trump has, in fact, sold lethal weapons to Ukraine. It’s an opinion peace, take it with a grain of salt that lacks any manafort. that's the laziest dismissal and makes it look like you didnt even read it. York is a well known Republican columnist and actually, you know, talked to people. It's under "opinion" because it's his column space. It’s under opinion because he be as bias as he wants. This would never pass as a featured article because it has no real foundation. I actually read it but it’s not worth my time to debate over. he relates what actually happened. holy...it's under opinion because he's not a reporter. yet, as a well known writer on his side, he can talk to people. In the story he quotes the delegate that added the language about lethal weapons. This is a regular occurrence all over the place, by the way. they added all that other strong language as well, which is something no one knows because it's never part of the story. This is willfully disbelieving something because you'd prefer that it's not true. On February 17 2019 02:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:02 Introvert wrote:
Read the article again, the platform was stronger than the one in 2012 and they changed one phrase (originally proposed by a single delegate), while adding some harsher ones.
The only "softening" was between drafts. It's a non story. especially considering that Trump has done the thing that was described by the first draft language. Given that between 2012 and 2016 Russia made military incursions into Ukrainian territory, I would sure as hell hope that the 2016 platform draft was stronger than the 2012 one on the Russia-Ukraine issue. Making the benchmark "was the end 2016 platform tougher than the 2012 one" is a fascinating obfuscation here. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." (also, the conceit that stripped out an entire undisclosed preamble that is not quoted from in a draft on a subject shouldn't be perceived as weakening is fascinating to me) The idea that a delegate proposes some language to a platform, that isn't public yet, and isn't the party's official position, and that counts as a news story is amazing. Changing "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is a legitimate change. It didn't weaken the platform because the part about lethal weapons was never in the platform. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." in particular this part is bad. No one said Trump strengthened it. The GOP strengthened it, with input and consultation with the Trump campaign. There is no way a change this small should be a recurring meme almost over two years later, but it's such a lazy talking point no one wants to let it go. You realize the article says: At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. Yet it also says: When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." Their intervention on the chunk was to "take out the throat-clearing introduction" (also referred to dismissively in that opinion piece, never quoted from) and change the language. To pitch this as "the Trump campaign approved making the platform tougher" rather than "the Trump campaign only approved a watered-down version of additions to the platform" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. And please do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself by bringing up the 2012 platform's position on Russia in general (not the Ukraine) written before Russia performed military incursions into Ukraine. Look at 2012 if you want a throat clearing introduction. To ignore everything else in there then say it was "watered down" when the SINGLE policy language change requested by the Trump campaign was "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. + Show Spoiler +Especially in light of the fact that this administration has provided lethal weapons to Ukraine.
You seem confused about what (most) of the news articles are saying. No wonder, since you keep babbling about 2012. The position was not watered down relative to 2012 so of course it wasn't watered down by the Trump campaign. That would have been an egregious error in judgment. It wasn't even watered down relative to the original draft by the Trump campaign (if I believe an anonymous insider source with likely ulterior motives, which I will for now). But a proposed (and accepted) amendment was watered down at the Trump campaign's request. They nuked a preamble (that the anonymous source wasn't kind enough to tell us, despite leaking multiple other parts, I wonder why) and requested a policy edit. The Trump campaign made an active choice to weaken the final GOP platform on Ukraine 2016 from what it would have been otherwise. This is fact, even per your own cited article. To obfuscate this, it places a variety of other benchmarks we should be rating the 2016 platform against-all poor counterfactuals for the question "what would have happened if they hadn't called New York?" + Show Spoiler +And those arms probably have something to do with the situation deteriorating further in the three years since anything was watered down, as well as Manafort's untimely departure
No actually, I'm using both 2012 and 2016 together, as well as 2016 alone. I am saying the change they made is negligible. The fact that this is one of the go to examples displays the real weakness of the whole Trump-Russia case. But don't worry, very serious person Robert Mueller was looking into this, lol.
|
On February 17 2019 03:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 03:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:58 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:28 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 17 2019 01:38 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2019 18:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 16 2019 16:05 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2019 11:44 Doodsmack wrote:So this guy Kilimnik, who is allegedly connected to Russian intelligence and who Manafort shared polling data with, wanted to shop a Ukraine peace plan. Trumps team made changes to the Republican platform at the convention that favored russia over Ukraine. And trump publicly requested Russia's hacking assistance at a press conference. Manafort and stone worked with trump since the 70s or 80s. Manafort's slogan in 2012 for his Ukraine politician client was "Make Ukraine Great Again." Manafort owned an apartment in trump tower. This investigation is just a hoax right? https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1096578061619920896https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1096582646786912256 This "weakened the platform" stuff is rediculous at this point. Here is what was changed. "We therefore support maintaining (and, if warranted, increasing) sanctions against Russia until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored," Denman's proposed amendment read. "We also support providing lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine's armed forces and greater coordination with NATO on defense planning. Simultaneously, we call for increased financial aid for Ukraine, as well as greater assistance in the economic and humanitarian spheres, including government reform and anti-corruption."
Denman's amendment also included an introductory paragraph filled with a lot of generic rhetoric. When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." They left intact Denman's language on NATO, and on continued and possibly tougher sanctions on Russia.
The final, Trump-approved passage read: "We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning." That was the amendment the committee approved.
In the end, nothing was taken out of the party's original draft platform on Russia. At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. It was also made tougher with Denman's reference to "NATO defense planning," which had not been in the original draft. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-what-really-happened-with-the-gop-platform-and-russiaAlso, it should be noted that Trump has, in fact, sold lethal weapons to Ukraine. It’s an opinion peace, take it with a grain of salt that lacks any manafort. that's the laziest dismissal and makes it look like you didnt even read it. York is a well known Republican columnist and actually, you know, talked to people. It's under "opinion" because it's his column space. It’s under opinion because he be as bias as he wants. This would never pass as a featured article because it has no real foundation. I actually read it but it’s not worth my time to debate over. he relates what actually happened. holy...it's under opinion because he's not a reporter. yet, as a well known writer on his side, he can talk to people. In the story he quotes the delegate that added the language about lethal weapons. This is a regular occurrence all over the place, by the way. they added all that other strong language as well, which is something no one knows because it's never part of the story. This is willfully disbelieving something because you'd prefer that it's not true. On February 17 2019 02:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:02 Introvert wrote:
Read the article again, the platform was stronger than the one in 2012 and they changed one phrase (originally proposed by a single delegate), while adding some harsher ones.
The only "softening" was between drafts. It's a non story. especially considering that Trump has done the thing that was described by the first draft language. Given that between 2012 and 2016 Russia made military incursions into Ukrainian territory, I would sure as hell hope that the 2016 platform draft was stronger than the 2012 one on the Russia-Ukraine issue. Making the benchmark "was the end 2016 platform tougher than the 2012 one" is a fascinating obfuscation here. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." (also, the conceit that stripped out an entire undisclosed preamble that is not quoted from in a draft on a subject shouldn't be perceived as weakening is fascinating to me) The idea that a delegate proposes some language to a platform, that isn't public yet, and isn't the party's official position, and that counts as a news story is amazing. Changing "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is a legitimate change. It didn't weaken the platform because the part about lethal weapons was never in the platform. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." in particular this part is bad. No one said Trump strengthened it. The GOP strengthened it, with input and consultation with the Trump campaign. There is no way a change this small should be a recurring meme almost over two years later, but it's such a lazy talking point no one wants to let it go. You realize the article says: At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. Yet it also says: When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." Their intervention on the chunk was to "take out the throat-clearing introduction" (also referred to dismissively in that opinion piece, never quoted from) and change the language. To pitch this as "the Trump campaign approved making the platform tougher" rather than "the Trump campaign only approved a watered-down version of additions to the platform" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. And please do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself by bringing up the 2012 platform's position on Russia in general (not the Ukraine) written before Russia performed military incursions into Ukraine. Look at 2012 if you want a throat clearing introduction. To ignore everything else in there then say it was "watered down" when the SINGLE policy language change requested by the Trump campaign was "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. + Show Spoiler +Especially in light of the fact that this administration has provided lethal weapons to Ukraine.
You seem confused about what (most) of the news articles are saying. No wonder, since you keep babbling about 2012. The position was not watered down relative to 2012 so of course it wasn't watered down by the Trump campaign. That would have been an egregious error in judgment. It wasn't even watered down relative to the original draft by the Trump campaign (if I believe an anonymous insider source with likely ulterior motives, which I will for now). But a proposed (and accepted) amendment was watered down at the Trump campaign's request. They nuked a preamble (that the anonymous source wasn't kind enough to tell us, despite leaking multiple other parts, I wonder why) and requested a policy edit. The Trump campaign made an active choice to weaken the final GOP platform on Ukraine 2016 from what it would have been otherwise. This is fact, even per your own cited article. To obfuscate this, it places a variety of other benchmarks we should be rating the 2016 platform against-all poor counterfactuals for the question "what would have happened if they hadn't called New York?" + Show Spoiler +And those arms probably have something to do with the situation deteriorating further in the three years since anything was watered down, as well as Manafort's untimely departure No actually, I'm using both 2012 and 2016 together, as well as 2016 alone. I am saying the change they made is negligible. The fact that this is one of the go to examples displays the real weakness of the whole Trump-Russia case. But don't worry, very serious person Robert Mueller was looking into this, lol.
I mean, given how utterly incompetent everyone in Trump's campaign orbit was and everyone in his orbit today is when it comes to policy, I'd hardly expect effective policy changes. The stupidity of these men knows no bounds, they can't even redact things properly. It hardly takes a Mueller to find evidence of their criminality most of the time-that's why I'm pretty confident anything that was done will come to light between various House investigations and the Mueller one if the public sees all the final reports.
But sure, you can ignore intent and the fact that the policy and preamble change coincides with the past lobbying aims of the then-Trump campaign chair who's now going to jail for 19-24 years for lying to federal prosecutors about, among other things, sharing polling data with a foreign entity later and ignore any and all smoke if you want.
|
On February 17 2019 03:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 03:28 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 03:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:58 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:28 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 17 2019 01:38 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2019 18:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:It’s an opinion peace, take it with a grain of salt that lacks any manafort. that's the laziest dismissal and makes it look like you didnt even read it. York is a well known Republican columnist and actually, you know, talked to people. It's under "opinion" because it's his column space. It’s under opinion because he be as bias as he wants. This would never pass as a featured article because it has no real foundation. I actually read it but it’s not worth my time to debate over. he relates what actually happened. holy...it's under opinion because he's not a reporter. yet, as a well known writer on his side, he can talk to people. In the story he quotes the delegate that added the language about lethal weapons. This is a regular occurrence all over the place, by the way. they added all that other strong language as well, which is something no one knows because it's never part of the story. This is willfully disbelieving something because you'd prefer that it's not true. On February 17 2019 02:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:02 Introvert wrote:
Read the article again, the platform was stronger than the one in 2012 and they changed one phrase (originally proposed by a single delegate), while adding some harsher ones.
The only "softening" was between drafts. It's a non story. especially considering that Trump has done the thing that was described by the first draft language. Given that between 2012 and 2016 Russia made military incursions into Ukrainian territory, I would sure as hell hope that the 2016 platform draft was stronger than the 2012 one on the Russia-Ukraine issue. Making the benchmark "was the end 2016 platform tougher than the 2012 one" is a fascinating obfuscation here. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." (also, the conceit that stripped out an entire undisclosed preamble that is not quoted from in a draft on a subject shouldn't be perceived as weakening is fascinating to me) The idea that a delegate proposes some language to a platform, that isn't public yet, and isn't the party's official position, and that counts as a news story is amazing. Changing "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is a legitimate change. It didn't weaken the platform because the part about lethal weapons was never in the platform. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." in particular this part is bad. No one said Trump strengthened it. The GOP strengthened it, with input and consultation with the Trump campaign. There is no way a change this small should be a recurring meme almost over two years later, but it's such a lazy talking point no one wants to let it go. You realize the article says: At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. Yet it also says: When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." Their intervention on the chunk was to "take out the throat-clearing introduction" (also referred to dismissively in that opinion piece, never quoted from) and change the language. To pitch this as "the Trump campaign approved making the platform tougher" rather than "the Trump campaign only approved a watered-down version of additions to the platform" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. And please do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself by bringing up the 2012 platform's position on Russia in general (not the Ukraine) written before Russia performed military incursions into Ukraine. Look at 2012 if you want a throat clearing introduction. To ignore everything else in there then say it was "watered down" when the SINGLE policy language change requested by the Trump campaign was "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. + Show Spoiler +Especially in light of the fact that this administration has provided lethal weapons to Ukraine.
You seem confused about what (most) of the news articles are saying. No wonder, since you keep babbling about 2012. The position was not watered down relative to 2012 so of course it wasn't watered down by the Trump campaign. That would have been an egregious error in judgment. It wasn't even watered down relative to the original draft by the Trump campaign (if I believe an anonymous insider source with likely ulterior motives, which I will for now). But a proposed (and accepted) amendment was watered down at the Trump campaign's request. They nuked a preamble (that the anonymous source wasn't kind enough to tell us, despite leaking multiple other parts, I wonder why) and requested a policy edit. The Trump campaign made an active choice to weaken the final GOP platform on Ukraine 2016 from what it would have been otherwise. This is fact, even per your own cited article. To obfuscate this, it places a variety of other benchmarks we should be rating the 2016 platform against-all poor counterfactuals for the question "what would have happened if they hadn't called New York?" + Show Spoiler +And those arms probably have something to do with the situation deteriorating further in the three years since anything was watered down, as well as Manafort's untimely departure No actually, I'm using both 2012 and 2016 together, as well as 2016 alone. I am saying the change they made is negligible. The fact that this is one of the go to examples displays the real weakness of the whole Trump-Russia case. But don't worry, very serious person Robert Mueller was looking into this, lol. I mean, given how utterly incompetent everyone in Trump's campaign orbit was and everyone in his orbit today is when it comes to policy, I'd hardly expect effective policy changes. The stupidity of these men knows no bounds, they can't even redact things properly. It hardly takes a Mueller to find evidence of their criminality most of the time. But sure, you can ignore intent and the fact that the policy and preamble change coincides with the past lobbying aims of the then-Trump campaign chair who's now going to jail for 19-24 years for lying to federal prosecutors about, among other things, sharing polling data with a foreign entity later if you want.
manafort was in serious debt, if I remember correctly. So I just always assume he was out to make some quick bucks. I don't think changing two words immaterially was going to make him those millions back. I mean if his great accomplishment was changing two words to say something almost identical, but he left in everything about NATO and sanctions, then I guess he was pretty ineffective. So again, prob not the example you'd want to lean on. (assuming Manafort had anything to do with it, does this Gordon fellow who made the request have a Manafort connection?)
edit: nope, looks like Gordon is a legit person, and looking at his record seems like he wouldn't be on the Russia love train.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Gordon
|
I get Trump campaign emails for shits and giggles, and today's email is titled "We had to do it"
lol
|
On February 17 2019 03:48 farvacola wrote:
I get Trump campaign emails for shits and giggles, and today's email is titled "We had to do it"
lol
I know Trump's immune, but I wonder if the normal human beings involved in this process ever get treated for whiplash. They have to turn about so fast they must look like a confused character in a Donald Duck cartoon.
|
Good to see we are still stuck on the 'weak' Trump-Russia case. Despite all the people going to jail, indictments and an actual admission by Trump that Jr. went to a meeting with Russian representatives to try and get assistance from a foreign government.
|
On February 17 2019 03:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 03:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 03:28 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 03:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:58 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:28 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 17 2019 01:38 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2019 18:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:
[quote]
It’s an opinion peace, take it with a grain of salt that lacks any manafort.
that's the laziest dismissal and makes it look like you didnt even read it. York is a well known Republican columnist and actually, you know, talked to people. It's under "opinion" because it's his column space. It’s under opinion because he be as bias as he wants. This would never pass as a featured article because it has no real foundation. I actually read it but it’s not worth my time to debate over. he relates what actually happened. holy...it's under opinion because he's not a reporter. yet, as a well known writer on his side, he can talk to people. In the story he quotes the delegate that added the language about lethal weapons. This is a regular occurrence all over the place, by the way. they added all that other strong language as well, which is something no one knows because it's never part of the story. This is willfully disbelieving something because you'd prefer that it's not true. On February 17 2019 02:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:02 Introvert wrote:
Read the article again, the platform was stronger than the one in 2012 and they changed one phrase (originally proposed by a single delegate), while adding some harsher ones.
The only "softening" was between drafts. It's a non story. especially considering that Trump has done the thing that was described by the first draft language. Given that between 2012 and 2016 Russia made military incursions into Ukrainian territory, I would sure as hell hope that the 2016 platform draft was stronger than the 2012 one on the Russia-Ukraine issue. Making the benchmark "was the end 2016 platform tougher than the 2012 one" is a fascinating obfuscation here. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." (also, the conceit that stripped out an entire undisclosed preamble that is not quoted from in a draft on a subject shouldn't be perceived as weakening is fascinating to me) The idea that a delegate proposes some language to a platform, that isn't public yet, and isn't the party's official position, and that counts as a news story is amazing. Changing "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is a legitimate change. It didn't weaken the platform because the part about lethal weapons was never in the platform. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." in particular this part is bad. No one said Trump strengthened it. The GOP strengthened it, with input and consultation with the Trump campaign. There is no way a change this small should be a recurring meme almost over two years later, but it's such a lazy talking point no one wants to let it go. You realize the article says: At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. Yet it also says: When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." Their intervention on the chunk was to "take out the throat-clearing introduction" (also referred to dismissively in that opinion piece, never quoted from) and change the language. To pitch this as "the Trump campaign approved making the platform tougher" rather than "the Trump campaign only approved a watered-down version of additions to the platform" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. And please do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself by bringing up the 2012 platform's position on Russia in general (not the Ukraine) written before Russia performed military incursions into Ukraine. Look at 2012 if you want a throat clearing introduction. To ignore everything else in there then say it was "watered down" when the SINGLE policy language change requested by the Trump campaign was "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. + Show Spoiler +Especially in light of the fact that this administration has provided lethal weapons to Ukraine.
You seem confused about what (most) of the news articles are saying. No wonder, since you keep babbling about 2012. The position was not watered down relative to 2012 so of course it wasn't watered down by the Trump campaign. That would have been an egregious error in judgment. It wasn't even watered down relative to the original draft by the Trump campaign (if I believe an anonymous insider source with likely ulterior motives, which I will for now). But a proposed (and accepted) amendment was watered down at the Trump campaign's request. They nuked a preamble (that the anonymous source wasn't kind enough to tell us, despite leaking multiple other parts, I wonder why) and requested a policy edit. The Trump campaign made an active choice to weaken the final GOP platform on Ukraine 2016 from what it would have been otherwise. This is fact, even per your own cited article. To obfuscate this, it places a variety of other benchmarks we should be rating the 2016 platform against-all poor counterfactuals for the question "what would have happened if they hadn't called New York?" + Show Spoiler +And those arms probably have something to do with the situation deteriorating further in the three years since anything was watered down, as well as Manafort's untimely departure No actually, I'm using both 2012 and 2016 together, as well as 2016 alone. I am saying the change they made is negligible. The fact that this is one of the go to examples displays the real weakness of the whole Trump-Russia case. But don't worry, very serious person Robert Mueller was looking into this, lol. I mean, given how utterly incompetent everyone in Trump's campaign orbit was and everyone in his orbit today is when it comes to policy, I'd hardly expect effective policy changes. The stupidity of these men knows no bounds, they can't even redact things properly. It hardly takes a Mueller to find evidence of their criminality most of the time. But sure, you can ignore intent and the fact that the policy and preamble change coincides with the past lobbying aims of the then-Trump campaign chair who's now going to jail for 19-24 years for lying to federal prosecutors about, among other things, sharing polling data with a foreign entity later if you want. manafort was in serious debt, if I remember correctly. So I just always assume he was out to make some quick bucks. I don't think changing two words immaterially was going to make him those millions back. I mean if his great accomplishment was changing two words to say something almost identical, but he left in everything about NATO and sanctions, then I guess he was pretty ineffective. So again, prob not the example you'd want to lean on. (assuming Manafort had anything to do with it, does this Gordon fellow who made the request have a Manafort connection?) edit: nope, looks like Gordon is a legit person, and looking at his record seems like he wouldn't be on the Russia love train. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Gordon
Gordon called "New York" after the amendment was proposed, Gordon didn't actually make any changes himself. There's no source in the story of who was behind the actual recommendations.
And for what it's worth Manafort is, again, such an idiot that he might think removing the preamble was actually worth an advance on those millions or at least a "look what I can do for you!" Though he ultimately got fired before he could deeper into Trump's ear.
|
On February 17 2019 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:
Good to see we are still stuck on the 'weak' Trump-Russia case. Despite all the people going to jail, indictments and an actual admission by Trump that Jr. went to a meeting with Russian representatives to try and get assistance from a foreign government.
I mean the same thing I've meant from the beginning. Some sort of cyber-espionage agreement between Trump and the Kremlin. Anything less doesn't satisfy the hysterical standards set immediately in the post-2016-election media.
edit: the time we found out about the meeting is quite literally the strongest the case has been. That was in July 2017, it's done nothing but get weaker since then.
edit2: but I'd rather not re-litigate that again, if Mueller ends in a few months we'll know what we need to know.
|
On February 17 2019 03:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 03:44 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 03:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 03:28 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 03:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:58 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:28 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 02:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 17 2019 01:38 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
that's the laziest dismissal and makes it look like you didnt even read it. York is a well known Republican columnist and actually, you know, talked to people. It's under "opinion" because it's his column space. It’s under opinion because he be as bias as he wants. This would never pass as a featured article because it has no real foundation. I actually read it but it’s not worth my time to debate over. he relates what actually happened. holy...it's under opinion because he's not a reporter. yet, as a well known writer on his side, he can talk to people. In the story he quotes the delegate that added the language about lethal weapons. This is a regular occurrence all over the place, by the way. they added all that other strong language as well, which is something no one knows because it's never part of the story. This is willfully disbelieving something because you'd prefer that it's not true. On February 17 2019 02:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 17 2019 02:02 Introvert wrote:
Read the article again, the platform was stronger than the one in 2012 and they changed one phrase (originally proposed by a single delegate), while adding some harsher ones.
The only "softening" was between drafts. It's a non story. especially considering that Trump has done the thing that was described by the first draft language. Given that between 2012 and 2016 Russia made military incursions into Ukrainian territory, I would sure as hell hope that the 2016 platform draft was stronger than the 2012 one on the Russia-Ukraine issue. Making the benchmark "was the end 2016 platform tougher than the 2012 one" is a fascinating obfuscation here. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." (also, the conceit that stripped out an entire undisclosed preamble that is not quoted from in a draft on a subject shouldn't be perceived as weakening is fascinating to me) The idea that a delegate proposes some language to a platform, that isn't public yet, and isn't the party's official position, and that counts as a news story is amazing. Changing "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is a legitimate change. It didn't weaken the platform because the part about lethal weapons was never in the platform. And the article describes "proposed strengthening -> Trump campaign coordination stripped out language on lethal aid -> still strengthened." In no way is that "Trump strengthened." in particular this part is bad. No one said Trump strengthened it. The GOP strengthened it, with input and consultation with the Trump campaign. There is no way a change this small should be a recurring meme almost over two years later, but it's such a lazy talking point no one wants to let it go. You realize the article says: At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. Yet it also says: When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." Their intervention on the chunk was to "take out the throat-clearing introduction" (also referred to dismissively in that opinion piece, never quoted from) and change the language. To pitch this as "the Trump campaign approved making the platform tougher" rather than "the Trump campaign only approved a watered-down version of additions to the platform" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. And please do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself by bringing up the 2012 platform's position on Russia in general (not the Ukraine) written before Russia performed military incursions into Ukraine. Look at 2012 if you want a throat clearing introduction. To ignore everything else in there then say it was "watered down" when the SINGLE policy language change requested by the Trump campaign was "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. + Show Spoiler +Especially in light of the fact that this administration has provided lethal weapons to Ukraine.
You seem confused about what (most) of the news articles are saying. No wonder, since you keep babbling about 2012. The position was not watered down relative to 2012 so of course it wasn't watered down by the Trump campaign. That would have been an egregious error in judgment. It wasn't even watered down relative to the original draft by the Trump campaign (if I believe an anonymous insider source with likely ulterior motives, which I will for now). But a proposed (and accepted) amendment was watered down at the Trump campaign's request. They nuked a preamble (that the anonymous source wasn't kind enough to tell us, despite leaking multiple other parts, I wonder why) and requested a policy edit. The Trump campaign made an active choice to weaken the final GOP platform on Ukraine 2016 from what it would have been otherwise. This is fact, even per your own cited article. To obfuscate this, it places a variety of other benchmarks we should be rating the 2016 platform against-all poor counterfactuals for the question "what would have happened if they hadn't called New York?" + Show Spoiler +And those arms probably have something to do with the situation deteriorating further in the three years since anything was watered down, as well as Manafort's untimely departure No actually, I'm using both 2012 and 2016 together, as well as 2016 alone. I am saying the change they made is negligible. The fact that this is one of the go to examples displays the real weakness of the whole Trump-Russia case. But don't worry, very serious person Robert Mueller was looking into this, lol. I mean, given how utterly incompetent everyone in Trump's campaign orbit was and everyone in his orbit today is when it comes to policy, I'd hardly expect effective policy changes. The stupidity of these men knows no bounds, they can't even redact things properly. It hardly takes a Mueller to find evidence of their criminality most of the time. But sure, you can ignore intent and the fact that the policy and preamble change coincides with the past lobbying aims of the then-Trump campaign chair who's now going to jail for 19-24 years for lying to federal prosecutors about, among other things, sharing polling data with a foreign entity later if you want. manafort was in serious debt, if I remember correctly. So I just always assume he was out to make some quick bucks. I don't think changing two words immaterially was going to make him those millions back. I mean if his great accomplishment was changing two words to say something almost identical, but he left in everything about NATO and sanctions, then I guess he was pretty ineffective. So again, prob not the example you'd want to lean on. (assuming Manafort had anything to do with it, does this Gordon fellow who made the request have a Manafort connection?) edit: nope, looks like Gordon is a legit person, and looking at his record seems like he wouldn't be on the Russia love train. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Gordon Gordon called "New York" after the amendment was proposed, Gordon didn't actually make any changes himself. There's no source in the story of who was behind the actual recommendations.And for what it's worth Manafort is, again, such an idiot that he might think removing the preamble was actually worth an advance on those millions or at least a "look what I can do for you!" Though he ultimately got fired before he could deeper into Trump's ear.
That's why I asked. Just a whole lot of conjecture.
|
This military construction statute that Trump is relying on says that the emergency must require the use of the "armed forces," and the construction must be necessary to support the deployment of the armed forces. You'd have to interpret it pretty broadly to claim that (1) the armed forces rather than Border Patrol are necessary to stop illegal immigration and (2) the construction can be a permanent one that remains in place after the deployment ends. It's pretty clear that the statute was intended to be limited to a military deployment.
|
On February 17 2019 03:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:
Good to see we are still stuck on the 'weak' Trump-Russia case. Despite all the people going to jail, indictments and an actual admission by Trump that Jr. went to a meeting with Russian representatives to try and get assistance from a foreign government. I mean the same thing I've meant from the beginning. Some sort of cyber-espionage agreement between Trump and the Kremlin. Anything less doesn't satisfy the hysterical standards set immediately in the post-2016-election media. edit: the time we found out about the meeting is quite literally the strongest the case has been. That was in July 2017, it's done nothing but get weaker since then.
Well, it will all depend on if the House/Mueller are able to identify if Jr. told Trump about the meeting or corroborate Cohen's testimony. And if they're able to discern if the "dirt" that Jr. himself says he failed to get from the meeting was hacked. Unfortunately I would guess nobody at that meeting was dumb enough to take notes.
That said, if I were a betting man I'd take "Trump obstructed justice in his attempts to cover up something that was accidentally a smidge illegal to protect his ego and/or business interests" over the "Jr. directly asked to hack the DNC emails in a long-term Trump-Russia conspiracy." He really seems like a man who would try to kill an investigation that would show conclusively he and his family lied over and over about e.g. any ongoing business deals in Russia (which it has at this point). Especially if he got the short end of the stick.
Especially back during the Comey firing when I think he wasn't quite as deep in his own reality bubble.
|
|
|
Invoking the emergency is declaring defeat. Senate Rs aren't going to bother trying to get anything else for Don while this stuff is being litigated. And as a bonus Don has done everything possible to ensure that he loses the first round of litigation. THE WALL would cost mega billions and require a decade of eminent domain litigation. Whatever Don gets from this declaration (which will be nothing or at most some money funneled to a friendly contractor) is all he will ever get.
|
I do like this new Conservative argrument concerning the Russia investigation. Since 2017 we have found out that the many of the things we speculated, like Flynn being dirty, Manafort being stupid, Roger Stone being in touch with Wikileaks are as real as we speculated. And now the new argument is “nothing has changed. We knew all of this before.” Now that is is impossible to deny, it wasn’t ever a big deal anyways.
And now the Republicans have to deal with a true imperial president and this time they will roll over because the president is of their party.
|
On February 17 2019 06:17 Plansix wrote:
I do like this new Conservative argrument concerning the Russia investigation. Since 2017 we have found out that the many of the things we speculated, like Flynn being dirty, Manafort being stupid, Roger Stone being in touch with Wikileaks are as real as we speculated. And now the new argument is “nothing has changed. We knew all of this before.” Now that is is impossible to deny, it wasn’t ever a big deal anyways.
And now the Republicans have to deal with a true imperial president and this time they will roll over because the president is of their party.
And you know they'll scream bloody murder if a Democratic President even considers doing the same thing.
|
On February 17 2019 06:40 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 06:17 Plansix wrote:
I do like this new Conservative argrument concerning the Russia investigation. Since 2017 we have found out that the many of the things we speculated, like Flynn being dirty, Manafort being stupid, Roger Stone being in touch with Wikileaks are as real as we speculated. And now the new argument is “nothing has changed. We knew all of this before.” Now that is is impossible to deny, it wasn’t ever a big deal anyways.
And now the Republicans have to deal with a true imperial president and this time they will roll over because the president is of their party. And you know they'll scream bloody murder if a Democratic President even considers doing the same thing.
This is the kind of thing that makes me think about moving past the stage of hypocrisy. Because, yeah, they're going to do that.
All liberals know they will.
All independents know they will.
All conservatives know they will.
And I have no reason to believe that this knowledge will change anything for anyone.
|
On February 17 2019 06:17 Plansix wrote:
I do like this new Conservative argrument concerning the Russia investigation. Since 2017 we have found out that the many of the things we speculated, like Flynn being dirty, Manafort being stupid, Roger Stone being in touch with Wikileaks are as real as we speculated. And now the new argument is “nothing has changed. We knew all of this before.” Now that is is impossible to deny, it wasn’t ever a big deal anyways.
And now the Republicans have to deal with a true imperial president and this time they will roll over because the president is of their party.
I'm not interested in lectures on a president's using congressionally delegated powers (right or wrongly delegated) from a party that said nothing about DACA, DAPA, declarations that congress is not in session when it is, unauthorized payments to insurance companies, etc. You know, those things with no statutory basis.
At least with Trump we have a statue we can debate and change. Everyone in favor of DACA should probably sit this one out.
oh, and don't forget how they also rolled back the start of certain Obamacare rules and mandates based on...nothing. Man, there are SO MANY of these.
|
On February 17 2019 07:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 06:17 Plansix wrote:
I do like this new Conservative argrument concerning the Russia investigation. Since 2017 we have found out that the many of the things we speculated, like Flynn being dirty, Manafort being stupid, Roger Stone being in touch with Wikileaks are as real as we speculated. And now the new argument is “nothing has changed. We knew all of this before.” Now that is is impossible to deny, it wasn’t ever a big deal anyways.
And now the Republicans have to deal with a true imperial president and this time they will roll over because the president is of their party. I'm not interested in lectures on a president's using congressionally delegated powers (right or wrongly delegated) from a party that said nothing about DACA, DAPA, declarations that congress is not in session when it is, unauthorized payments to insurance companies, etc. You know, those things with no statutory basis. At least with Trump we have a statue we can debate and change. Everyone in favor of DACA should probably sit this one out.
The hypocrisy argument goes both ways, you know. The military construction statute is narrowly drafted. There is even another statute that defines "military construction" as a construction that is in connection with a "military installation." A military installation is a "base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department." Surely you don't think that a generalized border wall is in connection with a military installation. If you opposed Obama's actions but support this, it's hypocrisy. Granted, it's hypocrisy on the Dem side too.
|
On February 17 2019 07:17 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2019 07:10 Introvert wrote:On February 17 2019 06:17 Plansix wrote:
I do like this new Conservative argrument concerning the Russia investigation. Since 2017 we have found out that the many of the things we speculated, like Flynn being dirty, Manafort being stupid, Roger Stone being in touch with Wikileaks are as real as we speculated. And now the new argument is “nothing has changed. We knew all of this before.” Now that is is impossible to deny, it wasn’t ever a big deal anyways.
And now the Republicans have to deal with a true imperial president and this time they will roll over because the president is of their party. I'm not interested in lectures on a president's using congressionally delegated powers (right or wrongly delegated) from a party that said nothing about DACA, DAPA, declarations that congress is not in session when it is, unauthorized payments to insurance companies, etc. You know, those things with no statutory basis. At least with Trump we have a statue we can debate and change. Everyone in favor of DACA should probably sit this one out. The hypocrisy argument goes both ways, you know. The military construction statute is narrowly drafted. There is even another statute that defines "military construction" as a construction that is in connection with a "military installation." Surely you don't think that a generalized border wall is in connection with a military installation. If you opposed Obama's actions but support this, it's hypocrisy. Granted, it's hypocrisy on the Dem side too.
we will find out, I've spent a decent amount of time now reading about this and slowly, as is the usual case, the view seems to be emerging that what he is doing is probably legal. The question you raise seems to be the one the smarter set of lawyers are talking about. "Does it count as an emergency" is not a question any court is going to want to answer. So we'll see after it goes through a few rounds in #resistance courts.
But the president is on far firmer ground than his predecessor was on any of things I mentioned. I don't have a firm opinion yet on the constitutionality, and in general I oppose large grants of power... but I also know who I'm NOT listening to.
but good on your for at least seeing the Democrat hypocrisy here, reading the above posts are good for a laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
