Multi Sport
DA
Quoting Politico?? Kinda like using the Enquirer as a source. Unless of course you work for TMIB..
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Bruddah IZ
DA
Ah yes, Moody'$ Analytic$. Moody's that rated Mortgaged Backed Securities higher then they should have been, setting up the nation for the Financial Crisis of 2008.
Not very tenacious as usual.
Krauthammer....
The main purpose of the modern political convention is to produce four days of televised propaganda. The subsidiary function, now that nominees are invariably chosen in advance, is structural: Unify the party before the final battle. In Cleveland, the Republicans achieved not unity, but only a rough facsimile.
The internal opposition consisted of two factions. The more flamboyant was led by Ted Cruz. Its first operation — an undermanned, underplanned, mini-rebellion over convention rules — was ruthlessly steamrolled on Day One. Its other operation was Cruz’s Wednesday night convention speech in which, against all expectation, he refused to endorse Donald Trump.
It’s one thing to do this off-site. It’s another thing to do it as a guest at a celebration of the man you are rebuking.
Cruz left the stage to a cascade of boos, having delivered the longest suicide note in American political history. If Cruz fancied himself following Ronald Reagan in 1976, the runner-up who overshadowed the party nominee in a rousing convention speech that propelled him four years later to the nomination, he might reflect on the fact that Reagan endorsed Gerald Ford.
Cruz’s rebellion would have a stronger claim to conscience had he not obsequiously accommodated himself to Trump during the first six months of the campaign. Cruz reinforced that impression of political calculation when, addressing the Texas delegation Thursday morning, he said that “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father.” That he should feel so is not surprising. What is surprising is that he said this publicly, thus further undermining his claim to acting on high principle.
The other faction of the anti-Trump opposition was far more subtle. These are the leaders of the party’s congressional wing who’ve offered public allegiance to Trump while remaining privately unreconciled. You could feel the reluctance of these latter-day Marranos in the speeches of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.
McConnell’s pitch, as always, was practical and direct. We’ve got things to achieve in the Senate. President Obama won’t sign. Hillary Clinton won’t sign. Donald Trump will.
Very specific, very instrumental. Trump will be our enabler, an instrument of the governing (or if you prefer, establishment) wing of the party.
This is mostly fantasy and rationalization, of course. And good manners by a party leader obliged to maintain a common front. The problem is that Trump will not allow himself to be the instrument of anyone else’s agenda. Moreover, the Marranos necessarily ignore the most important role of a president, conducting foreign and military policy abroad, which is almost entirely in his hands.
Ryan was a bit more philosophical. He presented the “reformicon” agenda, dubbed the “Better Way,” for which he too needs a Republican in the White House. Ryan pointedly kept his genuflections to the outsider-king to a minimum: exactly two references to Trump, to be precise.
Moreover, in defending his conservative philosophy, he noted that at its heart lies “respect and empathy” for “all neighbors and countrymen” because “everyone is equal, everyone has a place” and “no one is written off.” Not exactly Trump’s Manichaean universe of winners and losers, natives and foreigners (including judges born and bred in Indiana).
Together, McConnell and Ryan made clear that if Trump wins, they are ready to cooperate. And if Trump loses, they are ready to inherit.
The loyalist (i.e., Trumpian) case had its own stars. It was most brilliantly presented by the ever-fluent Newt Gingrich, the best natural orator in either party, whose presentation of Trumpism had a coherence and economy of which Trump is incapable.
Vice presidential nominee Mike Pence gave an affecting, self-deprecating address that managed to bridge his traditional conservatism with Trump’s insurgent populism. He managed to make the merger look smooth, even natural.
Rudy Giuliani gave the most energetic loyalist address, a rousing law-and-order manifesto, albeit at an excitement level that surely alarmed his cardiologist.
And Chris Christie’s prosecutorial indictment of Hillary Clinton for crimes of competence and character was doing just fine until he went to the audience after each charge for a call-and-response of “guilty or not guilty.” The frenzied response was a reminder as to why trials are conducted in a courtroom and not a coliseum.
On a cheerier note, there were the charming preambles at the roll-call vote, where each state vies to outboast the other. Connecticut declared itself home to “Pez, nuclear submarines and . . . WWE.” God bless the USA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e3dc90-4f7c-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html
The main purpose of the modern political convention is to produce four days of televised propaganda. The subsidiary function, now that nominees are invariably chosen in advance, is structural: Unify the party before the final battle. In Cleveland, the Republicans achieved not unity, but only a rough facsimile.
The internal opposition consisted of two factions. The more flamboyant was led by Ted Cruz. Its first operation — an undermanned, underplanned, mini-rebellion over convention rules — was ruthlessly steamrolled on Day One. Its other operation was Cruz’s Wednesday night convention speech in which, against all expectation, he refused to endorse Donald Trump.
It’s one thing to do this off-site. It’s another thing to do it as a guest at a celebration of the man you are rebuking.
Cruz left the stage to a cascade of boos, having delivered the longest suicide note in American political history. If Cruz fancied himself following Ronald Reagan in 1976, the runner-up who overshadowed the party nominee in a rousing convention speech that propelled him four years later to the nomination, he might reflect on the fact that Reagan endorsed Gerald Ford.
Cruz’s rebellion would have a stronger claim to conscience had he not obsequiously accommodated himself to Trump during the first six months of the campaign. Cruz reinforced that impression of political calculation when, addressing the Texas delegation Thursday morning, he said that “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father.” That he should feel so is not surprising. What is surprising is that he said this publicly, thus further undermining his claim to acting on high principle.
The other faction of the anti-Trump opposition was far more subtle. These are the leaders of the party’s congressional wing who’ve offered public allegiance to Trump while remaining privately unreconciled. You could feel the reluctance of these latter-day Marranos in the speeches of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.
McConnell’s pitch, as always, was practical and direct. We’ve got things to achieve in the Senate. President Obama won’t sign. Hillary Clinton won’t sign. Donald Trump will.
Very specific, very instrumental. Trump will be our enabler, an instrument of the governing (or if you prefer, establishment) wing of the party.
This is mostly fantasy and rationalization, of course. And good manners by a party leader obliged to maintain a common front. The problem is that Trump will not allow himself to be the instrument of anyone else’s agenda. Moreover, the Marranos necessarily ignore the most important role of a president, conducting foreign and military policy abroad, which is almost entirely in his hands.
Ryan was a bit more philosophical. He presented the “reformicon” agenda, dubbed the “Better Way,” for which he too needs a Republican in the White House. Ryan pointedly kept his genuflections to the outsider-king to a minimum: exactly two references to Trump, to be precise.
Moreover, in defending his conservative philosophy, he noted that at its heart lies “respect and empathy” for “all neighbors and countrymen” because “everyone is equal, everyone has a place” and “no one is written off.” Not exactly Trump’s Manichaean universe of winners and losers, natives and foreigners (including judges born and bred in Indiana).
Together, McConnell and Ryan made clear that if Trump wins, they are ready to cooperate. And if Trump loses, they are ready to inherit.
The loyalist (i.e., Trumpian) case had its own stars. It was most brilliantly presented by the ever-fluent Newt Gingrich, the best natural orator in either party, whose presentation of Trumpism had a coherence and economy of which Trump is incapable.
Vice presidential nominee Mike Pence gave an affecting, self-deprecating address that managed to bridge his traditional conservatism with Trump’s insurgent populism. He managed to make the merger look smooth, even natural.
Rudy Giuliani gave the most energetic loyalist address, a rousing law-and-order manifesto, albeit at an excitement level that surely alarmed his cardiologist.
And Chris Christie’s prosecutorial indictment of Hillary Clinton for crimes of competence and character was doing just fine until he went to the audience after each charge for a call-and-response of “guilty or not guilty.” The frenzied response was a reminder as to why trials are conducted in a courtroom and not a coliseum.
On a cheerier note, there were the charming preambles at the roll-call vote, where each state vies to outboast the other. Connecticut declared itself home to “Pez, nuclear submarines and . . . WWE.” God bless the USA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e3dc90-4f7c-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html
Krauthammer II
Why did he do it? FBI Director James Comey spent 14 minutes laying out an unassailable case for prosecuting Hillary Clinton for the mishandling of classified material. Then at literally the last minute, he recommended against prosecution.
This is baffling. Under the statute (18 U.S.C. section 793(f)), it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or “through gross negligence.” The evidence, as outlined by Comey, is overwhelming.
Clinton either sent or received 110 emails in 52 chains containing material that was classified at the time. Eight of these chains contained information that was top secret. A few of the classified emails were so marked, contrary to Clinton’s assertion that there were none.
These were stored on a home server that was even less secure than a normal Gmail account. Her communications were quite possibly compromised by hostile powers, thus jeopardizing American national security.
“An unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” said Comey of the classified emails. A rather kind euphemism, using the passive voice. In plainer, more direct language: It is imprudent, improper and indeed illegal to be conducting such business on an unsecured private server.
Comey summed up Clinton’s behavior as “extremely careless.” How is that not gross negligence?
Yet Comey let her off the hook, citing lack of intent. But negligence doesn’t require intent. Compromising national secrets is such a grave offense that it requires either intent or negligence.
Lack of intent is, therefore, no defense. But one can question that claim as well. Yes, it is safe to assume that there was no malicious intent to injure the nation. But Clinton clearly intended to set up an unsecured private server. She clearly intended to send those classified emails. She clearly received warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email account.
She meant to do what she did. And she did it. Intentionally.
That’s two grounds for prosecution, one requiring no intent whatsoever. Yet Comey claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Nor has one ever been brought.
Not so. Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices.
The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security.
So why not Hillary Clinton? The usual answer is that the Clintons are treated by a different standard. Only little people pay. They are too well-connected, too well-protected to be treated like everybody else.
Alternatively, the explanation lies with Comey: He gave in to implicit political pressure, the desire to please those in power.
Certainly plausible, but given Comey’s reputation for probity and given that he holds a 10-year appointment, I’d suggest a third line of reasoning.
When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold Obamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations of bad faith. My view was that, as guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, he thought the issue too momentous — and the implications for the country too large — to hinge on a decision of the court. Especially after Bush v. Gore, Roberts wanted to keep the court from overturning the political branches on so monumental a piece of social legislation.
I would suggest that Comey’s thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar: He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation.
Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential selection process. In my view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history.
And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover. Imagine that scenario: You knock out of the race the most likely next president — and she ultimately gets acquitted! Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances.
I admit I’m giving Comey the benefit of the doubt. But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn’t want to make history.
I don’t endorse his decision. (Nor did I Roberts’.) But I think I understand it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7f9bd0-4478-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html
Why did he do it? FBI Director James Comey spent 14 minutes laying out an unassailable case for prosecuting Hillary Clinton for the mishandling of classified material. Then at literally the last minute, he recommended against prosecution.
This is baffling. Under the statute (18 U.S.C. section 793(f)), it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or “through gross negligence.” The evidence, as outlined by Comey, is overwhelming.
Clinton either sent or received 110 emails in 52 chains containing material that was classified at the time. Eight of these chains contained information that was top secret. A few of the classified emails were so marked, contrary to Clinton’s assertion that there were none.
These were stored on a home server that was even less secure than a normal Gmail account. Her communications were quite possibly compromised by hostile powers, thus jeopardizing American national security.
“An unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” said Comey of the classified emails. A rather kind euphemism, using the passive voice. In plainer, more direct language: It is imprudent, improper and indeed illegal to be conducting such business on an unsecured private server.
Comey summed up Clinton’s behavior as “extremely careless.” How is that not gross negligence?
Yet Comey let her off the hook, citing lack of intent. But negligence doesn’t require intent. Compromising national secrets is such a grave offense that it requires either intent or negligence.
Lack of intent is, therefore, no defense. But one can question that claim as well. Yes, it is safe to assume that there was no malicious intent to injure the nation. But Clinton clearly intended to set up an unsecured private server. She clearly intended to send those classified emails. She clearly received warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email account.
She meant to do what she did. And she did it. Intentionally.
That’s two grounds for prosecution, one requiring no intent whatsoever. Yet Comey claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Nor has one ever been brought.
Not so. Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices.
The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security.
So why not Hillary Clinton? The usual answer is that the Clintons are treated by a different standard. Only little people pay. They are too well-connected, too well-protected to be treated like everybody else.
Alternatively, the explanation lies with Comey: He gave in to implicit political pressure, the desire to please those in power.
Certainly plausible, but given Comey’s reputation for probity and given that he holds a 10-year appointment, I’d suggest a third line of reasoning.
When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold Obamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations of bad faith. My view was that, as guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, he thought the issue too momentous — and the implications for the country too large — to hinge on a decision of the court. Especially after Bush v. Gore, Roberts wanted to keep the court from overturning the political branches on so monumental a piece of social legislation.
I would suggest that Comey’s thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar: He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation.
Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential selection process. In my view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history.
And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover. Imagine that scenario: You knock out of the race the most likely next president — and she ultimately gets acquitted! Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances.
I admit I’m giving Comey the benefit of the doubt. But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn’t want to make history.
I don’t endorse his decision. (Nor did I Roberts’.) But I think I understand it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7f9bd0-4478-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html
Wez
DA
Feel free to attack the content instead of the source, we're ready to discuss any factual deficiencies. Until then, we'll consider the content legitimate.
Wez
DA
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ica-hide-under-the-bed-again?cid=sm_fb_maddow
"Maybe it worked. Perhaps there are millions of Americans who care more about what feels true and less about what is true. Maybe voters want a television personality with authoritarian instincts to assure them that he alone can solve all of their problems."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ald-trumps-acceptance-speech-at-the-2016-rnc/
"Maybe it worked. Perhaps there are millions of Americans who care more about what feels true and less about what is true. Maybe voters want a television personality with authoritarian instincts to assure them that he alone can solve all of their problems."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ald-trumps-acceptance-speech-at-the-2016-rnc/
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp
"First of all, the number of executive orders issued by President Obama is grossly exaggerated here. Through his first term (i.e., the first four years of his presidency), Barack Obama issued 147 executive orders, not 923. (Now into the final year of his second term, President Obama has issued a total of 227 executive orders.) Moreover, compared to President Obama's predecessors in the White House, this is not an unusually large number of orders for a modern president: President George W. Bush issued291 executive orders during his eight years in office, while President Bill Clinton issued 364 such orders over the same span of time. "
More one-sided false narratives....
What blatant lies has Snopes published?
Wez
DA
He wasn't able to provide any of his "research", so I chalked it up to more unfounded hate of fact checking that shows their narrative to be off or just wrong.
I do wonder what the Republican party will morph into after this election? It's easier to see which direction the Dem's will go, after watching how open large swaths of America were a socialist independent for president named Bernie Sandars. Hillary is the end of the old guard as plainly the progressives movement is on the upswing. But it's less clear what the path forward looks like for Republican's.
At this point Cruz can't even win the Republican primary... so you'd have to think the christian conservative movement has the most to lose. That said Ted has kinda been running the show for a while with the whole shut down the government and helping push Boehner out political moves. And now you they take conch shell away and give it to who? Who gets to speak for the party then? Even if Trump wins and the nation becomes more isolationist... think Ted is making it pretty clear it will bring about a party civil war? Also what if Trump loses, it sure seems to me the GOP voters might have some issues with handing it back to Ted. After a week of watching the GOP convention I just feel like I've got more questions then answers...
Last edited:
It appears he is still running against Cruz, and that he is willing to let the conscientious (or die-hard) Cruz supporters go. In a way he is right - those voters won't make any difference in the foreseeable result.
"We have a President who believes that he alone can solve all of their problems through executive orders, regulations and partisan votes on major legislation...."
First of all I put no numbers and never used the word excessive...you go from painting portraits with a crop duster to just making stuff up?
But I will use this finding as an example:
Obama’s Executive Order On Immigration Overturned
The judge used Obama’s own words, that he couldn’t change a law just because he doesn’t like it, and actually the judge issued the ruling stating that just because congress fails to act, doesn’t give the president the power to act in it’s place.
https://radio1370.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/obamas-executive-order-on-immigration-overturned/
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a series of President Obama’s executive orders on immigration on Monday night, frustrating the administration’s efforts to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and delivering a major setback to a core policy initiative of the president’s second-term agenda.* The Justice Department said on Tuesday morning that it would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/fifth-circuit-obama-immigration/415077/
The SCOTUS had to let this one stand as it was 4-4 tie.
Where is Scalia when you need him?
GOP lifer says "no" to Trump.
https://goplifer.com/2016/07/22/resignation-letter/
https://goplifer.com/2016/07/22/resignation-letter/
Our leaders’ compromise preserves their personal capital at our collective cost. Their refusal to dissent robs all Republicans of moral cover. Evasion and cowardice has prevailed over conscience. We are now, and shall indefinitely remain, the Party of Donald Trump.
I will not contribute my name, my work, or my character to an utterly indefensible cause. No sensible adult demands moral purity from a political party, but conscience is meaningless without constraints. A party willing to lend its collective capital to Donald Trump has entered a compromise beyond any credible threshold of legitimacy. There is no redemption in being one of the “good Nazis.”
I will not contribute my name, my work, or my character to an utterly indefensible cause. No sensible adult demands moral purity from a political party, but conscience is meaningless without constraints. A party willing to lend its collective capital to Donald Trump has entered a compromise beyond any credible threshold of legitimacy. There is no redemption in being one of the “good Nazis.”
Wez
DA
Well of course you couldn't use the bullshit claims associated with that subject of the topic that Snopes blew up, but you certainly used the sound bite of Executive orders, even though it's been proven BO has not made use of them anymore then any other President before him.
That's the problem with right wing chumps, they bite onto a sound bite and refuse to let it go, no matter how much reality is put in there face.
Just as you started the former "Something to Ponder" thread with a bullshit Alinsky quote, and got dismantled by Snopes. No wonder you hate Snopes, it keeps exposing your bullshit.
You don't evolve Lion, you just hold onto what "feels" best for you. Fortunately, as the Trump campaign has shown, you have a lot of company.
Bruddah IZ
DA
How Different Is Trump From Other Politicians?
July 21, 2016, 9:28 am
This was an interesting profile of Trump featuring his ghostwriter on Art of the Deal. Frequent readers will know that even years before he came on the Presidential stage, I was never taken in by the Trump-is-a-great-businessman meme (most recently here).
In the New Yorker article, Trump's ghost says that Trump is not nearly as smart as he is made out to be, he is petty and childish and vain and self-absorbed. He apparently makes promises he never keeps and has made a mess of a number of his businesses. He has a short attention span and a shallow understanding of most issues.
Which all leads me to ask -- how does this make him any different from most other politicians, including the one he is running against for President? Is he unique in these qualities or merely unique in his inability or unwillingness to hide them? Does he have more skeletons in his closet, or does he just engender less personal loyalty so that more of his insiders speak out?
Don Boudreaux quoted a great bit from H.L Mencken the other day:
The state – or, to make the matter more concrete, the government – consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
July 21, 2016, 9:28 am
This was an interesting profile of Trump featuring his ghostwriter on Art of the Deal. Frequent readers will know that even years before he came on the Presidential stage, I was never taken in by the Trump-is-a-great-businessman meme (most recently here).
In the New Yorker article, Trump's ghost says that Trump is not nearly as smart as he is made out to be, he is petty and childish and vain and self-absorbed. He apparently makes promises he never keeps and has made a mess of a number of his businesses. He has a short attention span and a shallow understanding of most issues.
Which all leads me to ask -- how does this make him any different from most other politicians, including the one he is running against for President? Is he unique in these qualities or merely unique in his inability or unwillingness to hide them? Does he have more skeletons in his closet, or does he just engender less personal loyalty so that more of his insiders speak out?
Don Boudreaux quoted a great bit from H.L Mencken the other day:
The state – or, to make the matter more concrete, the government – consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
Bruddah IZ
DA
How many democrat lifers said no to Hillary, opting for Bernie without substitute, even now?