I heard speculation today that possibly all phone calls go on the secure server after that spate of phone conversation leaks this past year. That seems likely to me since that's what I would have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Printable View
I heard speculation today that possibly all phone calls go on the secure server after that spate of phone conversation leaks this past year. That seems likely to me since that's what I would have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
He had that much to hide? No other president in recent history did. Hmmmm. Now I'm more curious than ever. And I suspect I won't be disappointed if your heard speculation is accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
How do you know where other presidents stored their conversations? Being an old security guy I can tell you that shouldn't be public info.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
No one in washington can keep a secret. If any of our recent presidents had been trying this scam it would have become public knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I've gotta say, your sunny optimism regarding trump's intentions and actions is remarkable. Misplaced, but remarkable nonetheless.
I just read on facebook that the whistleblower is a fictitious non-person. If this is the best defense trump's supporters can come up with at this point then the obese woman backstage is done warming up.
Sunny optimism? I suppose in some circles lack of all consuming hate might be considered as such, but it reminds of how blessed I am not to live there. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
At the end of the day even archie bunker was a sad pathetic bitter loser supporter of nixon to the end. It's interesting how many republican senators are now shutting their traps regarding what's been revealed. A day or two ago they were all "THERE's NOTHING HERE!!!" Now most of them are all "..."
i read this comment several days ago and have been thinking about it. What is law and order about the current administration that causes so many Republicans to stand behind it? I remember years of Republican leaders touting morality and being fiscally conservative. I’m not sure what happened that this is not the current mantra. I just find this so puzzling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I did not like some of the things Bill Clinton did, or either Bush or Obama. Too many wars and troops on foreign soil, too much money spent and so on. I have voted Republican and Democrat depending on the big picture. But I just fail to see the big picture here. If you could summarize the overall goals of the current administration (a seemingly moving target), what would they be?
Current Republican goals. Tax cuts for rich people. Radical judges on the courts. Being mean to brown people. Undo as many protections for people and the environment as you can. Hang on to power by any means necessary. Own the libs.
Don’t forget guns. You can’t hunt orphans without guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Bears repeating.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I understand someone has publicly offered a reward for outing the whistle blower. I'm surprised anyone has the courage to do the right thing anymore.
The New York Times should submit a claim, based on what I read this morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
What must Mike Pence be thinking right now?
You obviously are delusional and cannot defend yourself. A supporter... no matter what! As trump said earlier... "people will continue to support me even if I kill someone" ... you are one of those people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I heard Kasich (R-Ohio) today speak about all that is going on. He is the one Republican I would have voted for in the last election. He is rational and speaks common sense. At this point in time, I would vote for Mayor Pete B. He too, speaks rationally.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to defend myself from. I do know your line of accusatory questioning confused me, reminding me of a recent line of questioning in Congress. I should have set up my response better for those with a more limited frame of reference. My bad!Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD7_Ho_2Zr0
:confused:Not surprising since trump's spouting they should be handled as they would in the past... mafia style:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
He keeps blathering on about treason and its penalties like he's not the one committing it. Clumsy misdirection.
I've always believed shutting up was a skill he regretfully never mastered. But all that's sideline noise, if this entire impeachment process is based upon the Ukraine call, what happens when the quid pro quo thing dissolves?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Didn't Nixon go down in flames for the coverup, not the crimes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I hope if they’re going to somehow drive Trump out of office they do it soon enough so that the party can run Nikki Haley or Marco Rubio against whatever statist savior the other people decide on.
The bench is deep. Deep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
They could start with the ten points of the Mueller Report.
If trump has to leave office before January 2025 for any reason other than death I guarantee that he will completely torch the republican party on his way out the door. There's no way his supporters are gonna get behind Haley or Rubio or anyone else if trump is removed or resigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I think he torched it when he entered the building.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
MSNBC reported this morning that The House would attempt to have the impeachment articles ready for a vote by Thanksgiving, after taking into account 4 weeks of recess during October and November. That's a pretty ambitious schedule so I'd guess the Democrats hope to have the House and Senate actions over by the first of the year to give as much time as possible for the public to forget. I'm sure both Pelosi and Schumer recall Bill Clinton's rise in the polls after impeachment so it's in their interest to do this thing quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Oh, I think you're simultaneously right and wrong. I think the Republican party is ripe for a Phoenix like disintegration and immediate rise from the ashes in order to correct it's 20 or so years of waywardness. It may be forced rather than the relatively slow natural progression the Democrats made to Democratic Socialism, but it's an exciting prospect for conscientious conservatives to regain control of the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
They have a core of "never Trumpers" they can start with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
But I don't see the Democrats progressing toward socialism at all--at least up until now. I can't think of a recent Democrat who wasn't "Republican light." I want a return to FDR-type governance, personally. You know the "I welcome their hatred" kind of thing.
I would see that as a schism between the more traditional conservatives and the more populist Trump rump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
In many ways, I would see that as a good thing for the conservative cause. They could offer a more coherent and realistic program after the voters get a taste of Democratic Socialism in practice.
The thing I find slightly interesting is that after 18 hours none of the republicans here have chimed in to refute my perception of what their failing party's goals are. I guess I nailed it?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I think you posed them with a "have you stopped beating your wife?" structured question, so I can't imagine any of them would engage in a serious conversation from that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Fair enough. I can see why no one would want to engage if they viewed it from that perspective. But to be honest, i am seriously curious what the republican agenda is because i really don’t see that they have one.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I think a lot of their agenda is to strengthen the economy by tax cuts, deregulation of the financial and fossil fuel industries, and improving the nation's positions on international trade. Not that I agree, but that seems obvious to me. Whether it is cause and effect or coincidence the economy on the whole seems to have done well, at least until recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
As the intro for The Apprentice goes "money, money, money."
We have sadly become an oligarchy, and the citizenry has been intentionally marginalized. People's lives, and freedoms, and well-being are irrelevant.
"People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!" --Greta Thunberg
Without indulging in cartoonish straw men of each side’s motivations and positions, I think the essential difference between the two parties for the last century or so is over the the proper size of the public sphere in citizens’ lives. In general, and there are exceptions, Democrats would enlarge it and Republicans would limit it.
From the health care industry to wedding cakes, the argument is over which decisions should be made collectively and which should be made individually. When government should mobilize people and their property for some purpose or other, and when individuals should be left to their own devices. When decisions should be taken at a central level, and when decisions are best made at the state or local level. Whether enforcing justice should apply based on some larger categories or based on the actions of individuals.
Strip out the self-interest, fear, and immature outrage addiction found in good measure up and down the political spectrum, and I think that is the basic difference we see today.
So true LDAHL. However this leads to so many inconsistencies. For instance, many people want to ban abortion in any circumstance, are for the death penalty and want no controls at on on our god-given right to own any guns in any circumstances. People want their religious beliefs respected yet don’t want to respect others beliefs. Many get all upset about taxes, yet want 911 to show up when they call, want great schools and roads. They want the federal government out of their beliefs but want to intrude on others beliefs.
We are a complicated species, but I think the 24/7 media and internet has been awful. To much information too fast, much of it dubious or untrue.
And then there is the wayback machine. Lindsey Graham is upset about the impeachment inquiry but said something to the effect of “you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime if you are out of bounds in your role ” About Clinton in 1999. He also said the whistleblower was all heresay, but had no Problem when the hearsay by Linda Tripp was used to go after Clinton.
Talk and selective memory is cheap but integrity and honesty is priceless.
I think either side (which may be a misnomer in that there are multiple factions within each) could point out the hypocrisy of the other until doomsday. Which party was for the Iraq war, the filibuster, the traditional definition of marriage and slavery before they were against it? Do such points accomplish anything beyond some kind of emotional benefit.
of course! One can argue that this POV is short term gain and long term detriment to our country, but I wouldn't make that case necessarily.I simply dont know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Last week DH was poking me about spending and said “I am going to make you pay for that shiny red car you bought” and
I reminded him “Donald J. Trump paid for that car, buddy!” I give The Donald all the credit in the world for providing me with a frivolous car, purchased with stock market gains.
I think you and I have a different definition of hypocrisy. I personally don't include changing one's mind when new information becomes available in the definition of hypocrisy. Nor is it hypocrisy if one acknowledges their past opinion and can explain why they have changed it. I doubt Lindsay Graham has suddenly changed his mind on impeachment. I'm sure he'd still be against impeaching trump even if trump did the worst imaginable thing which we all know is lying under oath about a blow job.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Is there a definitive list of when it's ok to lie under oath?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I'll check with Brett Kavanaugh and get back to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I understand the next Supreme Court candidate will be a child molester and everything he/she says that doesn't confirm that portrayal will be considered perjury. I feel for that as of yet unknown person.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1