Mueller indictments (split from Collusion with Russia)

[iNow]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Perhaps patience is the required quality at the moment because Trump will not be president one day and can then be held accountable. 

Perhaps, or perhaps things only continue to deteriorate further if the passion of the passive positive folks among us fails to scale appropriately with the passion of the angry and outcast. 

[Alex_Krycek]

The focus of this investigation was Russian interference in the election (which absolutely occurred) ; this is the threat that Mueller wanted to warn the American people about.  The nit-wit Republicans can't seem to understand that although Trump may not have willingly participated in this interference, it nevertheless occurred on a massive scale and needs to be safeguarded against. 

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The focus of this investigation was Russian interference in the election (which absolutely occurred)

This was only one of two focus areas. The other was obstruction, and is why the report was split into two volumes. The Russian interference was covered in volume one, the obstruction in volume two.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The focus of this investigation was Russian interference in the election (which absolutely occurred) ; this is the threat that Mueller wanted to warn the American people about.  The nit-wit Republicans can't seem to understand that although Trump may not have willingly participated in this interference, it nevertheless occurred on a massive scale and needs to be safeguarded against. 

On the contrary, it's likely they understand very well, but since it favors them they won't lift a finger to stop it (at best) or are actively pursuing help from outside, and furthering the attempted coverup.

[geordief]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

On the contrary, it's likely they understand very well, but since it favors them they won't lift a finger to stop it (at best) or are actively pursuing help from outside, and furthering the attempted coverup.

Is the next election going to be a free for all ,since there is no reason to suppose that only the Russian are persona grata now?

Will it be spy vs spy all over again? 

It is hard though to imagine any damage being caused to Trump or the Repubs as their reputation is,well non-existent at this stage. 

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is the next election going to be a free for all ,since there is no reason to suppose that only the Russian are persona grata now?

I don't think the GOP considers the Russians to be persona non grata.

44 minutes ago, geordief said:

Will it be spy vs spy all over again? 

It is hard though to imagine any damage being caused to Trump or the Repubs as their reputation is,well non-existent at this stage. 

Except for ~40% of the US, who appear to think that the GOP is doing a great job.

[geordief]

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't think the GOP considers the Russians to be persona non grata.

 

Was I too smart.? I said "persona grata" ,not "persona non grata"

 

Do you think  more than one foreign agency might attempt to influence the result since  there seems to be no concerted attempt ,so far as we ,(or Mueller apparently) know  to head them off at the pass?

Would China be tempted to interfere in the election to the detriment of the  GOP or would she be more likely to take the long view?

The Europeans might be favourable to the Dems .....the list goes on.Is the US (as well as  other countries) open for "business" ?

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do you think  more than one foreign agency might attempt to influence the result

China, Iran, and a few others (I suspect Saudi Arabia, but haven't seen confirmation yet) already are.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, geordief said:

Was I too smart.? I said "persona grata" ,not "persona non grata"

My brain apparently added the “non”

[geordief]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

My brain apparently added the “non”

You're welcome 

Edited July 25, 2019 by geordief

[Curious layman]

5 hours ago, geordief said:

Do you think  more than one foreign agency might attempt to influence the result since  there seems to be no concerted attempt ,so far as we ,(or Mueller apparently) know  to head them off at the pass?

Would China be tempted to interfere in the election to the detriment of the  GOP or would she be more likely to take the long view?

The Europeans might be favourable to the Dems .....the list goes on.Is the US (as well as  other countries) open for "business" ?

100% for China I reckon, probably for every other country as well in regards to China. But it goes both ways, how many countries has America tried to interfere with? It's just politics. They all do it to some extent. The difference now is the ability to use social media/fake news to reach a much bigger audience and have a much bigger/more damaging impact. All from your own country too.

Not sure about anyone in Europe though. Interference in elections isn't really there thing, especially against America.

[Alex_Krycek]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

On the contrary, it's likely they understand very well, but since it favors them they won't lift a finger to stop it (at best) or are actively pursuing help from outside, and furthering the attempted coverup. 

I agree.  They're completely self righteous and deluded.  At least the intelligence community will now be on high alert. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

52 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I agree.  They're completely self righteous and deluded.  At least the intelligence community will now be on high alert. 

That goes for the left as well. Pretty common right across the spectrum.

[Alex_Krycek]

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That goes for the left as well. Pretty common right across the spectrum. 

Perhaps some grassroots elements on the far left (such as Antifa) - but not in Congress.  I'm referring to elected Republican officials, those who have the power to vote on legislation.  These are people who seem completely ignorant of the law and are detached from reality.  To state that elected Democrats are in any way equal to them is a false equivalence.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Perhaps some grassroots elements on the far left (such as Antifa) - but not in Congress.  I'm referring to elected Republican officials, those who have the power to vote on legislation.  These are people who seem completely ignorant of the law and are detached from reality.  To state that elected Democrats are in any way equal to them is a false equivalence.

The Dems are placing their hopes for 2020 on that narrative. To the extent it's true it helps their cause. Overstating it the way they do risks doing the opposite. Must be frustrating to see the overstating get all the press.

 

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The Dems are placing their hopes for 2020 on that narrative. To the extent it's true it helps their cause. Overstating it the way they do risks doing the opposite. Must be frustrating to see the overstating get all the press. 

 

What Dems are you referring to?  Be more specific.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What Dems are you referring to?  Be more specific.

Members of the Democratic Party generally. Their leadership more specifically.

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The Dems are placing their hopes for 2020 on that narrative. To the extent it's true it helps their cause. Overstating it the way they do risks doing the opposite. Must be frustrating to see the overstating get all the press.

This administration has had more defections than any recent democrat admin, and more former officials in jail. How is this “overstating” ?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

This administration has had more defections than any recent democrat admin, and more former officials in jail. How is this “overstating” ?

That statement is accurate. It's not overstating. It is a good example of...

 

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The Dems are placing their hopes for 2020 on that narrative. To the extent it's true it helps their cause. Overstating it the way they do risks doing the opposite. Must be frustrating to see the overstating get all the press.

 

...part of the narrative.

Now...how hard was that? 

[Alex_Krycek]

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Members of the Democratic Party generally. Their leadership more specifically.

 

Your analysis is too vague to have a substantive discussion.  Further I don't think it's accurate when it comes to 2020.

If we look the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate hopefuls, for example, so far the strategy has been to offer detailed policy proposals that will move America in a positive economic/social direction: ending the forever wars, expanding healthcare coverage, re-balancing the tax burden to provide additional revenue, rebuilding infrastructure, etc.  The overall strategy of these candidates (with the exception of Biden) has been to offer a vision that is better than Trump's, not merely attack and denounce him. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If we look the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate hopefuls, for example, so far the strategy has been to offer detailed policy proposals that will move America in a positive economic/social direction: ending the forever wars, expanding healthcare coverage, re-balancing the tax burden to provide additional revenue, rebuilding infrastructure, etc.  The overall strategy of these candidates (with the exception of Biden) has been to offer a vision that is better than Trump's, not merely attack and denounce him. 

I would give you Yang, and accept someone at least arguing that of Warren...it starts getting pretty thin after that. Few have accounted for the costs of their (many unrealistic) policies to even a vague degree. 

Biden is far from the bottom of that pack.

Edited July 27, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

This administration has had more defections than any recent democrat admin, and more former officials in jail. How is this “overstating” ?

Compare Trumps consistent claim that he was "exonerated" by the Mueller report (he wasn't) with the Democrats claims that the only thing stopping Mueller from indicting Trump was the Office of Legal Council (also untrue)

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/nadler-misrepresents-mueller-testimony/

Both sides lie. It might take a committee of Dems to lie as much as Trump does as an individual...but they seem to be up to the task.

They are risking it backfiring when they do so...especially given the righteous indignation they express with it.

On 7/26/2019 at 7:35 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

The Dems are placing their hopes for 2020 on that narrative. To the extent it's true it helps their cause. Overstating it the way they do risks doing the opposite. Must be frustrating to see the overstating get all the press.

 

 

[Alex_Krycek]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would give you Yang, and accept someone at least arguing that of Warren...it starts getting pretty thin after that. Few have accounted for the costs of their (many unrealistic) policies to even a vague degree. 

Biden is far from the bottom of that pack.

• Sanders
• Yang
• Gabbard
• Warren

All worthy candidates.

I'm curious to know what you feel is "unrealistic" about having universal healthcare, considering that every other developed nation on the Earth has it figured out?

What's unrealistic is slashing taxes yet again for the wealthiest Americans, giving 750 billion USD to the Defense Industry every year, perpetuating forever wars, and maintaining a healthcare system that isn't the slightest bit interested in helping people, but rather wants to extort patients financially until they're on the brink of ruin.  What's "unrealistic" is expecting the status quo to somehow improve the lives of average Americans without making substantive change. 

Cost only matters to right wingers when the proposed programs benefit average Americans.  Rand Paul's vote to stop the 9/11 First Responders healthcare bill was a perfect example.  If a bill benefits the elite or major corporations - fiscal responsibility goes right out the window.  If a bill actually helps people, it's scrapped, to the frantic cry of:  "How are we going to pay for it?"  How are we going to pay for it?"  It's an obvious sham at this point.

There's more than enough money to do most of what the progressive candidates want to do - the right wing just doesn't want to do it, preferring to serve their donors instead. 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Alex_Krycek

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

• Sanders
• Yang
• Gabbard
• Warren

All worthy candidates.

I'm curious to know what you feel is "unrealistic" about having universal healthcare, considering that every other developed nation on the Earth has it figured out?

What's unrealistic is slashing taxes yet again for the wealthiest Americans, giving 750 billion USD to the Defense Industry every year, perpetuating forever wars, and maintaining a healthcare system that isn't the slightest bit interested in helping people, but rather wants to extort patients financially until they're on the brink of ruin.  What's "unrealistic" is expecting the status quo to somehow improve the lives of average Americans without making substantive change. 

Cost only matters to right wingers when the proposed programs benefit average Americans.  Rand Paul's vote to stop the 9/11 First Responders healthcare bill was a perfect example.  If a bill benefits the elite or major corporations - fiscal responsibility goes right out the window.  If a bill actually helps people, it's scrapped, to the frantic cry of:  "How are we going to pay for it?"  How are we going to pay for it?"  It's an obvious sham at this point.

There's more than enough money to do most of what the progressive candidates want to do - the right wing just doesn't want to do it, preferring to serve their donors instead. 

 

 

Certainly can't agree with you on Sanders, who unfortunately has dragged Warren further left than she might otherwise.

There isn't enough money. The current economy is driven by capitalism, and boosted by the subsidies of tax cuts, deregulation to the detriment of the environment, and deficit spending.

The Dems are going to kill the golden goose, which will already be suffering from an extended flight and having gotten a significant amount of oil in it's feathers.

[Alex_Krycek]

18 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Certainly can't agree with you on Sanders, who unfortunately has dragged Warren further left than she might otherwise.

There isn't enough money. The current economy is driven by capitalism, and boosted by the subsidies of tax cuts, deregulation to the detriment of the environment, and deficit spending.

The Dems are going to kill the golden goose, which will already be suffering from an extended flight and having gotten a significant amount of oil in it's feathers.

Can you answer my question, please, before we go any further?  What is so unrealistic about asking for universal healthcare?

You're from Canada, or at least you live there.  Would you be willing to trade your healthcare system for the system in the United States?  Yes or no.