Political Roundtable Part XX

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

completely unnecessary and rhetorical question of the day: If both manafort and Cohen who are now extremely compelled to testify against trump if they have anything at all on Trump...if they have nothing...if mueller gets nothing of subtance at all tying Trump to Russia or anything like that at all will any of you admit that this was a completely false witch hunt? Any of you?

I'm not asking you to give up your political biases...for example...you can still be pleased with yourselves about the mud slung on trump and whatever political hits you believe this investigation brought on him...and therefore you can still be happy that the investigation occurred and damaged Trump...

but what I'm asking if there was no collusion or any other high crimes...just procedural stuff like a mis filing here or there or even if Mueller gets nothing. at All. If there is NOTHING here are of you capable to admit to yourselves that it was a total witch hunt? Any of you?

yeah, didn't think so.

I'll answer your question but I think there's two different issues there.

1.)If Trump is completely innocent than yeah, it is what it is. Innocent etc etc

2.)Admit that it was a witch hunt all along? Depends.

If you believe the government had no reason at all to look at Trump or his associates then yeah, that's a witch hunt.

Now if your perspective is the feds had enough concern to look at Trump and his associates then nope, I don't consider that a witch hunt....even if he's ultimately exonerated.

[dckingsfan]

Nate's point is absolute garbage when you consider that Colin Kaepernick has been blackballed by the NFL at the behest of Trump

One point does not negate the other - both are wrong.

We shouldn't be limiting speaking engagements at colleges - especially when we are starting to block legitimate speakers.

We shouldn't be blocking the right to protest - Trump has it terribly wrong.

Trump should be belittling the FBI and preventing the probe and for that information to come out.

All of those things are wrong - not just one.

edit: sorry - came across as much more of a lecture than I wanted...

I don't think the Kaepernick situation has a reasonable analog.

College campuses choosing to only allow speakers they approve of or agree with doesn't preclude conservative speakers from speaking anywhere else. Nearly every single guest Fox News has on their programming is likeminded and there to pursue their partisan agenda or pursue their conservative ideas that Fox News endorses. Liberals are not allowed on Fox News. If right-wing nutjobs want to speak at college campuses, they can go to Texas A&M or Liberty University or wherever else that type of rhetoric is welcomed. Nobody is being silenced or de-platformed.

Not only has Kaepernick been de-platformed, but he's been blackballed from the NFL and prevented from working in his profession because of his protests. He's also been completely demonized and used as a dog whistle of sorts for Trump's personal benefit. The same is happening to Eric Reid. If you protest in a way Trump doesn't like, you'll not only be de-platformed, but you'll lose your job.

These two things are not the same.

They are not exactly the same, agreed. But they are definitely in the same family.

College campuses and higher ed is extremely important to the development of ideas and political ideas. And jobs. And those that aren't deemed "worthy" are not allowed to speak (and also have been blocked from meaningful employment).

Your points on Kaepernick are spot on (my opinion).

[dckingsfan]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

completely unnecessary and rhetorical question of the day: If both manafort and Cohen who are now extremely compelled to testify against trump if they have anything at all on Trump...if they have nothing...if mueller gets nothing of subtance at all tying Trump to Russia or anything like that at all will any of you admit that this was a completely false witch hunt? Any of you?

I'm not asking you to give up your political biases...for example...you can still be pleased with yourselves about the mud slung on trump and whatever political hits you believe this investigation brought on him...and therefore you can still be happy that the investigation occurred and damaged Trump...

but what I'm asking if there was no collusion or any other high crimes...just procedural stuff like a mis filing here or there or even if Mueller gets nothing. at All. If there is NOTHING here are of you capable to admit to yourselves that it was a total witch hunt? Any of you?

yeah, didn't think so.

I'll answer your question but I think there's two different issues there.

1.)If Trump is completely innocent than yeah, it is what it is. Innocent etc etc

2.)Admit that it was a witch hunt all along? Depends.

If you believe the government had no reason at all to look at Trump or his associates then yeah, that's a witch hunt.

Now if your perspective is the feds had enough concern to look at Trump and his associates then nope, I don't consider that a witch hunt....even if he's ultimately exonerated.

I would go a step further. It is on the FBI to prove to themselves that the issue should be dismissed. In protecting our country they must take ALL threats seriously and investigate by any reasonable means necessary. And they should continue that investigation until it is clear that 1) there was no wrong-doing or threat; 2) they were incorrect in their threat assessment; or 3) the threat has been mitigated.

One cannot yet say that the FBI has finished their investigation to those criteria. And one can definitely say that there was a credible threat (see Russian indictments).

[stilldropin20]

completely unnecessary and rhetorical question of the day: If both manafort and Cohen who are now extremely compelled to testify against trump if they have anything at all on Trump...if they have nothing...if mueller gets nothing of subtance at all tying Trump to Russia or anything like that at all will any of you admit that this was a completely false witch hunt? Any of you?

I'm not asking you to give up your political biases...for example...you can still be pleased with yourselves about the mud slung on trump and whatever political hits you believe this investigation brought on him...and therefore you can still be happy that the investigation occurred and damaged Trump...

but what I'm asking if there was no collusion or any other high crimes...just procedural stuff like a mis filing here or there or even if Mueller gets nothing. at All. If there is NOTHING here are of you capable to admit to yourselves that it was a total witch hunt? Any of you?

yeah, didn't think so.

I'll answer your question but I think there's two different issues there.

1.)If Trump is completely innocent than yeah, it is what it is. Innocent etc etc

2.)Admit that it was a witch hunt all along? Depends.

If you believe the government had no reason at all to look at Trump or his associates then yeah, that's a witch hunt.

Now if your perspective is the feds had enough concern to look at Trump and his associates then nope, I don't consider that a witch hunt....even if he's ultimately exonerated.

I would go a step further. It is on the FBI to prove to themselves that the issue should be dismissed. In protecting our country they must take ALL threats seriously and investigate by any reasonable means necessary. And they should continue that investigation until it is clear that 1) there was no wrong-doing or threat; 2) they were incorrect in their threat assessment; or 3) the threat has been mitigated.

One cannot yet say that the FBI has finished their investigation to those criteria. And one can definitely say that there was a credible threat (see Russian indictments).

Dersh take on MSNBC no less. consistent with Dersh's career long opinion on these matters btw. I mean, Alan effing Dershowitz. The man is so liberal, that he makes most liberals feel moderate or even conservative.

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

here's some good light hearted fun. enjoy.

Read on Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

completely unnecessary and rhetorical question of the day: If both manafort and Cohen who are now extremely compelled to testify against trump if they have anything at all on Trump...if they have nothing...if mueller gets nothing of subtance at all tying Trump to Russia or anything like that at all will any of you admit that this was a completely false witch hunt? Any of you?

I'm not asking you to give up your political biases...for example...you can still be pleased with yourselves about the mud slung on trump and whatever political hits you believe this investigation brought on him...and therefore you can still be happy that the investigation occurred and damaged Trump...

but what I'm asking if there was no collusion or any other high crimes...just procedural stuff like a mis filing here or there or even if Mueller gets nothing. at All. If there is NOTHING here are of you capable to admit to yourselves that it was a total witch hunt? Any of you?

yeah, didn't think so.

I'll answer your question but I think there's two different issues there.

1.)If Trump is completely innocent than yeah, it is what it is. Innocent etc etc

2.)Admit that it was a witch hunt all along? Depends.

If you believe the government had no reason at all to look at Trump or his associates then yeah, that's a witch hunt.

Now if your perspective is the feds had enough concern to look at Trump and his associates then nope, I don't consider that a witch hunt....even if he's ultimately exonerated.

This is an idiotic question to ask given what we know about Manafort. The dude is a crook, and he used his position with the Trump campaign to avoid being rubbed out by his Russian mobster creditors and sell the elimination of Russian sanctions for temporary debt relief. There is absolutely no question at all that he is guilty of "high crimes." The only question is proving that Trump knew about it, which would make him guilty too.

[Zonkerbl]

One point does not negate the other - both are wrong.

We shouldn't be limiting speaking engagements at colleges - especially when we are starting to block legitimate speakers.

We shouldn't be blocking the right to protest - Trump has it terribly wrong.

Trump should be belittling the FBI and preventing the probe and for that information to come out.

All of those things are wrong - not just one.

edit: sorry - came across as much more of a lecture than I wanted...

I don't think the Kaepernick situation has a reasonable analog.

College campuses choosing to only allow speakers they approve of or agree with doesn't preclude conservative speakers from speaking anywhere else. Nearly every single guest Fox News has on their programming is likeminded and there to pursue their partisan agenda or pursue their conservative ideas that Fox News endorses. Liberals are not allowed on Fox News. If right-wing nutjobs want to speak at college campuses, they can go to Texas A&M or Liberty University or wherever else that type of rhetoric is welcomed. Nobody is being silenced or de-platformed.

Not only has Kaepernick been de-platformed, but he's been blackballed from the NFL and prevented from working in his profession because of his protests. He's also been completely demonized and used as a dog whistle of sorts for Trump's personal benefit. The same is happening to Eric Reid. If you protest in a way Trump doesn't like, you'll not only be de-platformed, but you'll lose your job.

These two things are not the same.

They are not exactly the same, agreed. But they are definitely in the same family.

College campuses and higher ed is extremely important to the development of ideas and political ideas. And jobs. And those that aren't deemed "worthy" are not allowed to speak (and also have been blocked from meaningful employment).

Your points on Kaepernick are spot on (my opinion).

Non-state colleges are perfectly entitled to chase off speakers they don't like. When I was at UD they welcomed fundamentalist nutjobs to wander around campus asking you what you would say to Jesus when you died. But strangely enough there were no speakers invited to talk about abortion rights.

Campus speakers are a non-issue. Berkley laudably tried, during the sixties, to make an effort to let everybody speak. But that was their choice, not their legal obligation. I don't think anyone is under any sort of obligation, moral or otherwise, to give a platform to insincere aholes like Milo Imadufpolus. Nate brings it up because he thinks he's some sort of genius debater but it's a completely nonsense point.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

for the record rod rosenstein is considered to be attorney #2.

some fun quotes from what it is likely mr rosenstein, who happens to be in charge of the mueller investigation:

"i am so stress about what i could have done differently."

"we broke the momentum."

"everything is gone. ACA is gone."

"I am just devastated."

"plus my name is all over the documents investigating his staff so who knows what he is going to do if that breaks."

Everyone thinks that is Rod Rosenstein. Still think this is a fair investigation? the same Rod Rosenstein that wrote the letter recommending that Trump Fire Comey. The same Rod rosenstein that has allowed mueller an extremely long leash to investigate. and has expanded that leash after the fact to allow even longer of a leash.

This is fair, huh?

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

I don't think the Kaepernick situation has a reasonable analog.

College campuses choosing to only allow speakers they approve of or agree with doesn't preclude conservative speakers from speaking anywhere else. Nearly every single guest Fox News has on their programming is likeminded and there to pursue their partisan agenda or pursue their conservative ideas that Fox News endorses. Liberals are not allowed on Fox News. If right-wing nutjobs want to speak at college campuses, they can go to Texas A&M or Liberty University or wherever else that type of rhetoric is welcomed. Nobody is being silenced or de-platformed.

Not only has Kaepernick been de-platformed, but he's been blackballed from the NFL and prevented from working in his profession because of his protests. He's also been completely demonized and used as a dog whistle of sorts for Trump's personal benefit. The same is happening to Eric Reid. If you protest in a way Trump doesn't like, you'll not only be de-platformed, but you'll lose your job.

These two things are not the same.

They are not exactly the same, agreed. But they are definitely in the same family.

College campuses and higher ed is extremely important to the development of ideas and political ideas. And jobs. And those that aren't deemed "worthy" are not allowed to speak (and also have been blocked from meaningful employment).

Your points on Kaepernick are spot on (my opinion).

Non-state colleges are perfectly entitled to chase off speakers they don't like. When I was at UD they welcomed fundamentalist nutjobs to wander around campus asking you what you would say to Jesus when you died. But strangely enough there were no speakers invited to talk about abortion rights.

Campus speakers are a non-issue. Berkley laudably tried, during the sixties, to make an effort to let everybody speak. But that was their choice, not their legal obligation. I don't think anyone is under any sort of obligation, moral or otherwise, to give a platform to insincere aholes like Milo Imadufpolus. Nate brings it up because he thinks he's some sort of genius debater but it's a completely nonsense point.

First, it isn't just nut jobs. They are chasing off folks like the attorney general of Illinois and the like. But you are right, Kaepernick has no more right to use the NFL as a stage than the attorney general of Illinois. But that says something.

Second, the point that he made (and rightly) was that the player was chased out of the NFL as are conservatives in higher ed. So, respectfully, I see them as more similar than not.

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

Wasting my time again debunking an often repeated conservative lie
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Cohen is going to sing and Manafort who sits in jail now, must have one helluva a promise to keep quiet.

[bsilver]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Cohen is going to sing and Manafort who sits in jail now, must have one helluva a promise to keep quiet.

I don't think Cohen has much information of value that could hurt Trump and family.

Manafort could have plenty. I agree about the promise. I predict that he spends more time in jail before being convicted than after. No matter what he's done.

[Zonkerbl]

They are not exactly the same, agreed. But they are definitely in the same family.

College campuses and higher ed is extremely important to the development of ideas and political ideas. And jobs. And those that aren't deemed "worthy" are not allowed to speak (and also have been blocked from meaningful employment).

Your points on Kaepernick are spot on (my opinion).

Non-state colleges are perfectly entitled to chase off speakers they don't like. When I was at UD they welcomed fundamentalist nutjobs to wander around campus asking you what you would say to Jesus when you died. But strangely enough there were no speakers invited to talk about abortion rights.

Campus speakers are a non-issue. Berkley laudably tried, during the sixties, to make an effort to let everybody speak. But that was their choice, not their legal obligation. I don't think anyone is under any sort of obligation, moral or otherwise, to give a platform to insincere aholes like Milo Imadufpolus. Nate brings it up because he thinks he's some sort of genius debater but it's a completely nonsense point.

First, it isn't just nut jobs. They are chasing off folks like the attorney general of Illinois and the like. But you are right, Kaepernick has no more right to use the NFL as a stage than the attorney general of Illinois. But that says something.

Second, the point that he made (and rightly) was that the player was chased out of the NFL as are conservatives in higher ed. So, respectfully, I see them as more similar than not.

The problem with Kaepernick is Trump needs to shut his goddamn racist mouth. Trump is working for the government now and when he advocates for Kaepernick to be fired he is violating the Constitution.

Disinviting speakers you're not interested in has nothing to do with Kaepernick. At all.

[verbal8]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Cohen is going to sing and Manafort who sits in jail now, must have one helluva a promise to keep quiet.

I don't think Cohen has much information of value that could hurt Trump and family.

Manafort could have plenty. I agree about the promise. I predict that he spends more time in jail before being convicted than after. No matter what he's done.

Generally I think the speculation is the reverse. That Cohen has tons of dirt on Trump and Manafort may have shady dealings that don't involve Trump as much. It could be that Manafort has more info related to Russia and Cohen would be involved more in non-Russian Trump shadiness.

If the goal was to put Manafort in jail for the rest of his life, Mueller already has the charges to do so. The continuing to add charges, is an attempt to get him to flip on a "bigger fish".

[Zonkerbl]

The way Trump behaves himself I would be SHOCKED if he wasn't neck deep in criminality, and Manafort and Cohen are the kind of slimeballs he cozies up with. They probably both have a ton of dirt on him. Manafort won't turn because he doesn't want to be shot. Cohen is Fredo.

[dckingsfan]

Non-state colleges are perfectly entitled to chase off speakers they don't like. When I was at UD they welcomed fundamentalist nutjobs to wander around campus asking you what you would say to Jesus when you died. But strangely enough there were no speakers invited to talk about abortion rights.

Campus speakers are a non-issue. Berkley laudably tried, during the sixties, to make an effort to let everybody speak. But that was their choice, not their legal obligation. I don't think anyone is under any sort of obligation, moral or otherwise, to give a platform to insincere aholes like Milo Imadufpolus. Nate brings it up because he thinks he's some sort of genius debater but it's a completely nonsense point.

First, it isn't just nut jobs. They are chasing off folks like the attorney general of Illinois and the like. But you are right, Kaepernick has no more right to use the NFL as a stage than the attorney general of Illinois. But that says something.

Second, the point that he made (and rightly) was that the player was chased out of the NFL as are conservatives in higher ed. So, respectfully, I see them as more similar than not.

The problem with Kaepernick is Trump needs to shut his goddamn racist mouth. Trump is working for the government now and when he advocates for Kaepernick to be fired he is violating the Constitution.

Disinviting speakers you're not interested in has nothing to do with Kaepernick. At all.

Well, that is a very salient point - using the bully pulpit to attack individuals is way over the like.

Disinviting speakers vs. shutting down their ability to speak though... not sure I am with you on that one. And prejudicial hiring practices - that is most definitely a problem.

[closg00]

Cohen is going to sing and Manafort who sits in jail now, must have one helluva a promise to keep quiet.

I don't think Cohen has much information of value that could hurt Trump and family.

Manafort could have plenty. I agree about the promise. I predict that he spends more time in jail before being convicted than after. No matter what he's done.

Generally I think the speculation is the reverse. That Cohen has tons of dirt on Trump and Manafort may have shady dealings that don't involve Trump as much. It could be that Manafort has more info related to Russia and Cohen would be involved more in non-Russian Trump shadiness.

If the goal was to put Manafort in jail for the rest of his life, Mueller already has the charges to do so. The continuing to add charges, is an attempt to get him to flip on a "bigger fish".

I refer you back to the Steele Dossier for clues, the part about Cohen managing deniable cash payments in-light of recent news makes the Dossier look like money again.

That then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had "managed" the "conspiracy of co-operation", and that he used Trump's foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, and others, "as intermediaries".[92][93] (Dossier, p. 7)
That Page had "conceived and promoted" the idea of leaking the stolen DNC emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[94][85] (Dossier, pp. 7, 17)
That Cohen played a "key role" in the Trump–Russia relationship[3] by maintaining a "covert relationship with Russia",[95][96][97] arranging cover-ups and "deniable cash payments",[52][31] and that his role had grown after Manafort had left the campaign.[98][94] (Dossier, pp. 18, 30, 32, 34–35)
That "COHEN now was heavily engaged in a cover up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of TRUMP's relationship with Russia being exposed."[94][87] (Dossier, p. 32)

[verbal8]

BTW there is no Trump is innocent scenario on Russia. He created a lie about a meeting with his son in Trump tower.
There is small chance he doesn't have criminal involvement, but his best case involves serious ethical lapses.
That doesn't include any issues with Trump foundation, affair cover ups, Trump University, non-Russia shady Real Estate deals, or....

[Wizardspride]

I don't think Cohen has much information of value that could hurt Trump and family.

Manafort could have plenty. I agree about the promise. I predict that he spends more time in jail before being convicted than after. No matter what he's done.

Generally I think the speculation is the reverse. That Cohen has tons of dirt on Trump and Manafort may have shady dealings that don't involve Trump as much. It could be that Manafort has more info related to Russia and Cohen would be involved more in non-Russian Trump shadiness.

If the goal was to put Manafort in jail for the rest of his life, Mueller already has the charges to do so. The continuing to add charges, is an attempt to get him to flip on a "bigger fish".

I refer you back to the Steele Dossier for clues, the part about Cohen managing deniable cash payments in-light of recent news makes the Dossier look like money again.

That then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had "managed" the "conspiracy of co-operation", and that he used Trump's foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, and others, "as intermediaries".[92][93] (Dossier, p. 7)
That Page had "conceived and promoted" the idea of leaking the stolen DNC emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[94][85] (Dossier, pp. 7, 17)
That Cohen played a "key role" in the Trump–Russia relationship[3] by maintaining a "covert relationship with Russia",[95][96][97] arranging cover-ups and "deniable cash payments",[52][31] and that his role had grown after Manafort had left the campaign.[98][94] (Dossier, pp. 18, 30, 32, 34–35)
That "COHEN now was heavily engaged in a cover up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of TRUMP's relationship with Russia being exposed."[94][87] (Dossier, p. 32)

Read on Twitter

?s=19