Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation

[cpwill]

So...freedom of speech should be reined in?

I do not think that "printing classified information which puts the lives of others in danger and/or enables international terrorist organizations to avoid collection" falls under Free Speech. That I would rein in.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

Can he actually fire Mueller? I thought the AG had to.

I'm really not up on the process.

Would be hilarious revenge is Sessions explained that, as he had recused himself, he couldn't...

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

No, I'm use "firing Mueller" as a simplified form of the total process required to accomplish that, which frankly is not especially difficult.

 

[cpwill]

No, I'm use "firing Mueller" as a simplified form of the total process required to accomplish that, which frankly is not especially difficult.

"Tell Rosenstein to"

At which point, I would like to see some resignations.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

"Tell Rosenstein to"

At which point, I would like to see some resignations.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

He can just keep firing everybody until he finds someone who will agree to do it. Will he be able to find that special someone? Considering the kind of people he surrounds himself with, I have little doubt that it will be a speedy interview process.

 

[beefheart]

I do not think that "printing classified information which puts the lives of others in danger and/or enables international terrorist organizations to avoid collection" falls under Free Speech. That I would rein in.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

So, you just want to institute a chilling effect on the media?

 

[cpwill]

So, you just want to institute a chilling effect on the media?

I want them not to break the law.

More broadly, I'm willing to risk "chilling" puting people's lives in danger via exposing classified information for clicks for the same reason I'm willing to "chill" firing guns into the air in cities for kicks: other people have rights, too, and you aren't the most important person in the world.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[beefheart]

I want them not to break the law.

More broadly, I'm willing to risk "chilling" puting people's lives in danger via exposing classified information for clicks for the same reason I'm willing to "chill" firing guns into the air in cities for kicks: other people have rights, too, and you aren't the most important person in the world.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

But you are broad brushing all the "media". And you said you want the "media" reined in.

That is dangerous talk.

 

[upsideguy]

Partisans in the base of both sides became so blinded by those who told them what they wanted to hear, they lost the ability to vet their own candidates?

I do hope the logical consequence of this ugly moment in American history is that our electorate moves more to the center with the parties shunning those on the fringe. RINO (and DINO) should refer to extreme wings of the party that lack the understanding that America moves forward with negotiation and compromise rather than out bullying your opponent.

 

[cpwill]

But you are broad brushing all the "media". And you said you want the "media" reined in.

That is dangerous talk.

The media are the ones who have decided they get to expose classified information whenever they please, regardless of the effects. Saying "oh that's dangerous talk" is just a way of saying "I cannot think of a really good defense for them doing so".

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Yes_Minister]

That's right, it doesn't. You have to actually win. Hillary, it turns out, couldn't do that, not even against a candidate as toxic as Trump.



Sure. And you can gain more yards than your opponent, yet still lose the football game. You can spend more time in control of the ball, and still lose the football match. You can lead the pack for the majority of the race, and yet lose if you aren't in front at the end. You can be taller, and yet lose at Jeopardy. You can speak better English, and yet lose the chess tournament. Irrelevant measurements are irrelevant measurements.

Democrats chose a candidate so awful, she managed to lose to Trump. I realize that's a hard to admit to being ones' self.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

I think a lot of members of the left wing Dem base didn't care for Clinton either, that's why the Bernie Bro movement stuck around. Really she won due to the party brass backing her.

Really there are so many problems with the US system: a decadent two party systems that rewards seniority over talent and doesn't allow for parties with new ideas, gerrymandering, hyper partisanship where defeating the other side is more important then policy. Even something like the EC wouldn't be so bad, if you could fix that other stuff.

No offense, but the US system seems so broken it starts make systems like Canada's Parliamentary system seem good by comparison and the Canadian system isn't that great.

 

[cpwill]

I do hope the logical consequence of this ugly moment in American history is that our electorate moves more to the center with the parties shunning those on the fringe. RINO (and DINO) should refer to extreme wings of the party that lack the understanding that America moves forward with negotiation and compromise rather than out bullying your opponent.

Well, the GOP nominated an anti-trade, pro big Government, pro big spending, pro same-sex, pro transgender defender of Planned Parenthood, so I'd say they've made the first move.


More likely, the ugliness of this moment establishes new norms, as each side seeks revenge.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

I think a lot of members of the left wing Dem base didn't care for Clinton either, that's why the Bernie Bro movement stuck around. Really she won due to the party brass backing her.

Really there are so many problems with the US system: a decadent two party systems that rewards seniority over talent and doesn't allow for parties with new ideas, gerrymandering, hyper partisanship where defeating the other side is more important then policy. Even something like the EC wouldn't be so bad, if you could fix that other stuff.

No offense, but the US system seems so broken it starts make systems like Canada's Parliamentary system seem good by comparison and the Canadian system isn't that great.

The system works great. It's a fantastic system. It's the people who are broken.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[beefheart]

The media are the ones who have decided they get to expose classified information whenever they please, regardless of the effects. Saying "oh that's dangerous talk" is just a way of saying "I cannot think of a really good defense for them doing so".

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

So you are sticking with the whole "media is the enemy" thing. And you want to restrict the media's freedom of speech.

How Un-American.

 

[Yes_Minister]

The system works great. It's a fantastic system. It's the people who are broken.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

I think the bones of the system are good, there is nothing wrong with the US constitution and the institutions it set up, the problem is a bunch of other stuff got grafted on later.

There is nothing in the constitution about a two party system or the primaries. The primaries are something that makes no sense and has no constitutional basis, the US has an election cycle that seems to last for years and are really expensive, Canada's last federal was the longest and most expensive in history and it was a fraction of the average US election cycle, in terms of cost and length.

 

[upsideguy]

Well, the GOP nominated an anti-trade, pro big Government, pro big spending, pro same-sex, pro transgender defender of Planned Parenthood, so I'd say they've made the first move.


More likely, the ugliness of this moment establishes new norms, as each side seeks revenge.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Though Trump has the history you described, our TV reality star does not seem to be playing that role in this movie. Instead, he is decked out in the costume of a prototypical South American right wing dictator.... a 21st Century Juan Peron.

As to how Americans will respond, you are probably more right than I want you to be. I guess I am a hopeless romantic that believes Americans ultimately do the right thing and reclaim their government through debate and compromise rather than shouting and revenge.

 

[cpwill]

As to how Americans will respond, you are probably more right than I want you to be. I guess I am a hopeless romantic that believes Americans ultimately do the right thing and reclaim their government through debate and compromise rather than shouting and revenge.

Winston Churchill once commented that Americans could always be trusted to do the right thing, once they had exhausted other options. As a matter of human psychology, I simply don't see the left responding to an acerbic Republican with grace or with wisdom. Instead, I see them rewarding whoever says the things that sound most like:

Though Trump has the history you described, our TV reality star does not seem to be playing that role in this movie. Instead, he is decked out in the costume of a prototypical South American right wing dictator.... a 21st Century Juan Peron.

just as they loved the people who said the most disconnected and awful things about Bush.

 

[cpwill]

I think the bones of the system are good, there is nothing wrong with the US constitution and the institutions it set up, the problem is a bunch of other stuff got grafted on later.

There is nothing in the constitution about a two party system or the primaries. The primaries are something that makes no sense and has no constitutional basis, the US has an election cycle that seems to last for years and are really expensive, Canada's last federal was the longest and most expensive in history and it was a fraction of the average US election cycle, in terms of cost and length.

Primaries aren't part of our official election system - they are private events, run by private entities (the parties). Party's are free not to have primaries (in fact, the Libertarians don't).

But no system of representative government can survive the degradation of it's people. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people - it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (James Adams). As the American people have coarsened, so have our politics. As we have celebrated vices, our politics have come to reflect them.

 

[cpwill]

So you are sticking with the whole "media is the enemy" thing

Oh, hey, look!

A strawman!

No. A free press is a critical institution. Nowhere did I say they should be kept from making fools of themselves by disconnectedly criticizing one side, or another, or even for not telling the truth. I said we should enforce the laws against publicizing classified information, instead of giving the media a pass which we do not extend to others. Their 1st Amendment rights are no more or less than anyone else's, and they are putting others' lives at risk for the benefit of their own bottom line. Usually leftists recognize that large companies shouldn't be allowed to endanger regular people in for profit.

And you want to restrict the media's freedom of speech.

How Un-American.

No more than it is unAmerican to enforce laws against slander, or breaking confidentiality. No right is absolute, and the rights of others naturally restrict the exercise of our own.

 

[Excon]

So then, the rules are largely irrelevant to whether or not you will win. It's how the game is counted. Democrats won a popular vote, they had the will of the people. Republicans had the EC; which made who Democrats put out irrelevant even if they'd had had a better candidate.

How did you get that from what was said in relation to how the system works?
The only way I can see anyone drawing such conclusions if they do not know how the system actually works. Your reply seems to confirm that.


There is no winning of a National popular vote as the National popular vote is irrelevant and does not determine who becomes President.

A weaker candidate who beat her opponent by 3 million votes?

She didn't beat him. He beat her, 306 to 232.
He received the most votes that actually have something to do with the outcome.


Pointing to irrelevant information and claiming winning, most votes, or National popular vote, besides being irrelevant, is nothing but whining.

 

[Rexedgar]

The media are the ones who have decided they get to expose classified information whenever they please, regardless of the effects. Saying "oh that's dangerous talk" is just a way of saying "I cannot think of a really good defense for them doing so".

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

What 'classified' information has the press released that you feel has compromised national security. Recall the Russia only meeting in the Oval Office?

 

[cpwill]

What 'classified' information has the press released that you feel has compromised national security. Recall the Russia only meeting in the Oval Office?

I would start with the NY Times expose on how we were tracking and stopping terror plots via their bank transactions.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Rexedgar]

I would start with the NY Times expose on how we were tracking and stopping terror plots via their bank transactions.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

And the Russia only meeting that seemed to tell our allies that maybe entrusting classified information to the US wasn't such a good idea? I think that those who wish to do us harm are adapting to new technology faster than we can defend. I would think they are very savvy in digital methods, Communication and banking and such.

 

[cpwill]

And the Russia only meeting that seemed to tell our allies that maybe entrusting classified information to the US wasn't such a good idea? I think that those who wish to do us harm are adapting to new technology faster than we can defend. I would think they are very savvy in digital methods, Communication and banking and such.

Leaks and their release have destroyed entire programs, entire capabilities. A Cheif means by which VEO leadership becomes savvy is our unfortunate tendency to tell them how to do so, by exposing our own collection.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[AliHajiSheik]

So you are sticking with the whole "media is the enemy" thing. And you want to restrict the media's freedom of speech.

How Un-American.

A very powerful argument in support of the Citizens United decision. :applaud

 

[JANFU]

The system works great. It's a fantastic system. It's the people who are broken.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

I would say big money as the number 1 cause.