Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-01-2019, 09:11 PM   #31
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
So in light of what Russia has done, is doing and will do your ok with Trump encouragement of their interference in the 2016 election?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Quite a leap there--from my pointing out how you were wrong--to implying that I'm OK with what Russia is doing and will do.

I'm OK with Trump's sarcasm. I thought it was funny when he said it, and when he said the media would applaud the Russians for exposing Hillary. What's also funny is the idea that Russia needs Trump's encouragement. They been doing this way, way, before Trump. They probably laugh at and are satisfied with accusations that they need Trump's encouragement. They are going to do what they are going to do regardless of what Trump says or doesn't. I'm sure they are happy with the divisiveness that such accusations inspire. You fall right into being a willing victim of their disinformation and its sowing of seeds intended to blossom into discord.

And the Russians were encouraged to "interfere" in our affairs by Progressive leftists in the past, from Academia, NY Times and other "liberal" media, Progressive Politicians, and all sorts of anti-American left leaning groups. And the old Soviet influence in our political affairs is flourishing again now with the Communist Party annexing itself to the Democrat Party. If you don't see the Communist influence in the push of the Democrats to the left, even more openly in some of the rising stars in their party, and old ones such as Bernie Sanders, your being blinded by leftist spin and partisan intentionally driven hate, aided with even the redefinition of polarizing words such as racist and all the phobes, and the attempt to make those on the "right" an embodiment of those manufactured words.

No, I am not happy with what Russia does. And I am not happy with a Democrat Party which is more and more embracing Communist ideals.
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-02-2019, 08:45 AM   #32
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 34,942
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
John thanks for the history lesson, but what Russia was capable of doing and the influence that may have resulted in prior to the internet, is like comparing the first gas engine driven car to what circles the track at Daytona.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, it is not. It is another in a long line of tools they wield to influence. Hell, they don't even need to change your mind, just cast doubt. Or pit you against your brother.

For a moment put aside the question of whether or not Trump actively asked for assistance from Putin. The fact there is such a disarray over it is what they will exploit. They sprinkle problem seeds (Steele Dossier for example) around where they exist and where they don't exist just to see what takes root.

They have done this for decades with unions, Civil Rights leaders, and a lot of Democrats. They tried hard to flip MLK, he wouldn't. After his assassination, they tried to get remaining civil rights leadership to declare a race war (almost happened, but some prominent leaders would not bite).

You see the same thing today over the past few years with RUS spiking both sides of the Black Lives Matter. Particularly using Social Media.

They have done this countless times, on many subjects, long before the Internet. This is all documented.

Do I think Trump is dirty? Yeh, probably (I know HRC is dirty).

Now for emphasis: Do I KNOW that Trump entered active agreement with Russia to have the election pushed to DJT's benefit? No. This was the bar I needed to see reached with the Mueller Report. It did not.So when the Progressive Left politicians are all wrapped around the axle with Russia, Russia, Russia: Ehhfuk Them. Welcome to the Party Pal (insert Bruce Willis image). The consistently pro-dem party media for DECADES has eaten pro Russia spin. Ehhfuk Them Too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
John just gave a brief overall sketch. If he had filled in the details, you would not have responded the way you did. The direct involvement and participation of Soviet agents and fellow travelers in the FDR administration was absolutely massive and persuasive. It was directly responsible for the takeover of China and other parts of Asia as well as all of Eastern Europe by Communists. The internet influence that Russia exerted in this last go-round amounts to nothing in comparison to what the Soviets accomplished with their infiltration of Roosevelt's administration.
The Green Parties of Western Europe in the 80s protesting US/NATO.
The college campuses of the 30s to a lesser extent and exploded in the 60s (and ever since).
World leaders. Sitting members of congress. Administration people (cough Robert Kennedy - though this one was probably beneficial)

Any pot that can be stirred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
And the Russians were encouraged to "interfere" in our affairs by Progressive leftists in the past, from Academia, NY Times and other "liberal" media, Progressive Politicians, and all sorts of anti-American left leaning groups. And the old Soviet influence in our political affairs is flourishing again now with the Communist Party annexing itself to the Democrat Party. If you don't see the Communist influence in the push of the Democrats to the left, even more openly in some of the rising stars in their party, and old ones such as Bernie Sanders, your being blinded by leftist spin and partisan intentionally driven hate, aided with even the redefinition of polarizing words such as racist and all the phobes, and the attempt to make those on the "right" an embodiment of those manufactured words.

No, I am not happy with what Russia does. And I am not happy with a Democrat Party which is more and more embracing Communist ideals.
^^^ This is all true

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline  
Old 06-05-2019, 06:58 AM   #33
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
geeze John...it's like you dropped a MOAB on the commiecrats
scottw is offline  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:06 PM   #34
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Time will tell, much like with Russian interference history cited by others, where information has come out that was not public knowledge at the time it occurred.

Of course all of the information contained in the Mueller report is of no importance, just SOP for Russia, likely prosecutorial overreaches on Muellers part, perfectly acceptable behavior to Trumplicans and some here.

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is online now  
Old 06-05-2019, 03:51 PM   #35
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
great work pete...that's riveting stuff

when exactly was Papadopoulos Trump's National Security advisor?

keep digging...I'm sure you will unearth a 15th....
scottw is offline  
Old 06-05-2019, 06:00 PM   #36
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
PeteF has a thesis going
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline  
Old 06-05-2019, 07:50 PM   #37
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
PeteF has a thesis going
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
that’s funny right there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 06-06-2019, 07:30 AM   #38
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 34,942
Blog Entries: 1
There may be something there in Pete's list. There are a lot of Mays there. There is a big ole pot of mud.

But Mueller needed to provide smoking gun, unequivocal, high bar evidence. He didn't.

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline  
Old 06-06-2019, 07:53 AM   #39
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,383
Won’t be so easy for Trump and his campaign (assuming he makes it to that point) to ask or welcome help from Russia, Facebook or Wikileaks; could be he is one and done thankfully. Voting security is still a big concern.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline  
Old 06-06-2019, 12:06 PM   #40
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Lawrence Tribe has an interesting proposition for how the investigation of Trump should proceed.
From the WaPo:
Laurence H. Tribe is the University Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard and the coauthor, most recently, of “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.”

It is possible to argue that impeaching President Trump and removing him from office before the 2020 election would be unwise, even if he did cheat his way into office, and even if he is abusing the powers of that office to enrich himself, cover up his crimes and leave our national security vulnerable to repeated foreign attacks. Those who make this argument rest their case either on the proposition that impeachment would be dangerously divisive in a nation as politically broken as ours, or on the notion that it would be undemocratic to get rid of a president whose flaws were obvious before he was elected.

Rightly or wrongly — I think rightly — much of the House Democratic caucus, at least one Republican member of that chamber (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan) and more than a third of the nation’s voters disagree. They treat the impeachment power as a vital constitutional safeguard against a potentially dangerous and fundamentally tyrannical president and view it as a power that would be all but ripped out of the Constitution if it were deemed unavailable against even this president.

That is my view, as well.

Still, there exists concern that impeachment accomplishes nothing concrete, especially if the Senate is poised to quickly kill whatever articles of impeachment the House presents. This apprehension is built on an assumption that impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate are analogous to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury: Just as a prosecutor might hesitate to ask a grand jury to indict even an obviously guilty defendant if it appeared that no jury is likely to convict, so, it is said, the House of Representatives might properly decline to impeach even an obviously guilty president — and would be wise to do so — if it appeared the Senate was dead-set against convicting him.

But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided. The Constitution’s design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict. And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial — an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.

Take, for instance, the 1974 investigation of President Richard M. Nixon when the House gave the president the opportunity to refute the charges against him either personally or through counsel and with additional fact witnesses. (Nixon chose to appear only through his attorney, James D. St. Clair.) Following its impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee drafted particularized findings less in the nature of accusations to be assessed by the Senate — which of course never weighed in, given Nixon’s resignation — than in the nature of determinations of fact and law and verdicts of guilt to be delivered by the House itself, expressly stating that the president was indeed guilty as charged.

It seems fair to surmise, then, that an impeachment inquiry conducted with ample opportunity for the accused to defend himself before a vote by the full House would be at least substantially protected, even if not entirely bullet-proofed, against a Senate whitewash.

The House, assuming an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate pre-committed to burying them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution far stronger than a mere censure. The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication. (A House resolution finding the president “impeachable” but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a “Scarlet ‘I’ ” that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.)

The point would not be to take old-school House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset. Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him.

By resolving now to pursue such a path, always keeping open the possibility that its inquiry would unexpectedly lead to the president’s exoneration, the House would be doing the right thing as a constitutional matter. It would be acting consistent with its overriding obligation to establish that no president is above the law, all the while keeping an eye on the balance of political considerations without setting the dangerous precedent that there are no limits to what a corrupt president can get away with as long as he has a compliant Senate to back him. And pursuing this course would preserve for all time the tale of this uniquely troubled presidency.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is online now  
Old 06-06-2019, 04:06 PM   #41
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

Lawrence Tribe has an interesting proposition .
not really...
scottw is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 10:32 AM   #42
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 34,942
Blog Entries: 1
Tribe is such a partisan

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:01 PM   #43
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is online now  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:16 PM   #44
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
PeteF has finally displayed clarity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:34 PM   #45
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
Now for emphasis: Do I KNOW that Trump entered active agreement with Russia to have the election pushed to DJT's benefit? No. This was the bar I needed to see reached with the Mueller Report. It did not.
So I guess you're OK with a POTUS who's sworn to uphold the Constitution obstructing justice that's just fine and dandy. I guess Putin made him do it because that's what Russians have always done.

Brilliant.
spence is offline  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:44 PM   #46
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
Tribe is such a partisan
So is George Conway

“It’s not a modest proposal—it’s brilliant. Nothing in the Constitution dictates the procedure by which the House decides whether to pass a bill of impeachment. No reason why it can’t hold a trial for the American people to see. Let the chips fall where they may.”

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is online now  
Old 06-07-2019, 10:27 PM   #47
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
So is George Conway

“It’s not a modest proposal—it’s brilliant. Nothing in the Constitution dictates the procedure by which the House decides whether to pass a bill of impeachment. No reason why it can’t hold a trial for the American people to see. Let the chips fall where they may.”
Conway is a Trump hater. And he is in no special position which makes his opinions some gold standard of political or constitutional thought.

And Tribe's proposal is thoughtless idiocy driven by partisanship and hate. His language presupposes Trump's guilt and so is irrational to begin with, as well as being stupid, a contradiction to law or reason or purposes for criminal trials or the duty of the House, and a disregard for the consequences that would occur every time the House is ruled by the party to which the President doesn't belong.

Tribe, Conway, Spence, and you are constantly assuring us that Trump is guilty. If you didn't think so, or you were not sure, would you believe that a public trial of the President by the house is a good idea merely to convince the public that the President is a criminal? Would such a trial (which no doubt would happen every time the House was of an opposing party) serve the non-partisan responsibilities to which the branches of the Federal Government must be faithful, or would it be another way to play political opposition in order to obstruct the governing party's attempt to govern? Would giving the legislative branch such judicial powers be another instance of further destroying constitutional separation of powers?

And criminal trials are meant to convict, not to make a show for political purposes--not to be show trials.
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:43 PM   #48
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
So where in the Constitution does it specify how the House is to make the determination to impeach the President?
Mueller could not within the rules, indict trump.
Trump could waive the rules that Mueller believes prohibit him from indicting him.
The report says Trump may have successfully obstructed the investigation, that’s the point of obstruction.
Meanwhile Mr lock them up, is horrified that someone said in private, that they want him to lose, be indicted, convicted and go to prison, far less horrible than what he’s been saying about others since he became a candidate and continued to say as President. I suppose you think he was joking about that also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is online now  
Old 06-08-2019, 10:46 PM   #49
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
So where in the Constitution does it specify how the House is to make the determination to impeach the President?

A majority vote of the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), which are then tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict before an official can be removed.

Mueller could not within the rules, indict trump.

The purpose of Mueller's investigation was not to indict, but to conclude that Trump was guilty of obstruction. And he could have specifically recommended whatever was needed for Trump to be removed.

Trump could waive the rules that Mueller believes prohibit him from indicting him.

Why should he? Mueller's investigation did not conclude that Trump obstructed. On what grounds should Trump waive the rules?

The report says Trump may have successfully obstructed the investigation, that’s the point of obstruction.

The report does not conclude that Trump obstructed the investigation. The report, and other reports, do point out a lot of instances where Trump cooperated and aided the investigation.

Meanwhile Mr lock them up, is horrified that someone said in private, that they want him to lose, be indicted, convicted and go to prison, far less horrible than what he’s been saying about others since he became a candidate and continued to say as President. I suppose you think he was joking about that also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Trump generally doesn't attack unless he is attacked. You seem to think that he should not respond in kind. I have no problem with it.
detbuch is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com