The TIC

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 

And how about the current state of the GOP and the Presidency itself

Kind of a broad question; anything specific you have in mind?
At any rate, the nuts and bolts of politics bore me, in general. If you’ve noticed, the bulk of my posting runs along the lines of social issues and attitudes, not politics.

So our foreign policy bores you?  How about our economy?  Do you care about that?  

Those are not things that keep me awake at night.

Foreign policy includes potential and actual wars, trade, the nature of our defense policies, alliances, immigration policies...etc..

You seriously don't care about our nation's economy?  Don't care about the stock market?  Employment or unemployment?  Taxes?  Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid...etc...  

Why the hell do you vote at all?

happy jack wrote:

If it is your opinion that, "He's done nothing but advance the Conservative social and economic agenda", fine.

What's your opinion on his performance, his policies, and those of this Cabinet if not that?

happy jack wrote:

.... his Presidency has thus far served one very important purpose, in my view.

Yeah. Well, continuing with another entry on your list of "those on the Left who have shown their true colors to the general public.... something they will never be able to take back."

happy jack wrote:

The wearers of pussyhats

Who does this refer to, exactly?  Are you talking about the Women's March?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

.... his Presidency has thus far served one very important purpose, in my view.

Yeah. Well, continuing with another entry on your list of "those on the Left who have shown their true colors to the general public.... something they will never be able to take back."

happy jack wrote:

The wearers of pussyhats

Who does this refer to, exactly?  Are you talking about the Women's March?

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510997192/with-pussyhats-liberals-get-their-own-version-of-the-red-trucker-hat

"I think this woman who put this together is frickin' brilliant and a genius because it's such a political, simple statement: a pink hat, and all you have is the pussycat ears," said Mellicent Dyane, 50, a casting director from New York City, wearing a neon pink hat as she watched the rally. "It speaks volumes."

I'm simply blinded by the brilliance of the pussyhat.

So... That's it?  You don't like the pussyhat?  How is this emblematic of "a very important purpose" of the Trump presidency?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Nor has he even attempted to explain how a Democratic Presidency would still be worse than the current Republican one.  That's what I'm most interested in understanding.

Yep.  I  mean, WTF?   If we're not going to discuss the fucking issues, then what's the fucking point?

Got anything at all to say about this train wreck of a Presidency, Jack?

Yes, I do.
Trump, as an individual, is a boorish asshole.
But his Presidency has thus far served one very important purpose, in my view. The very idea that he is actually in the White House has caused those on the Left to show their true colors to the general public, and that is something they will never be able to take back. Their behavior is not any grand revelation to me, of course - I've long known what they were like.

Who are they?  What are the "true colors" that you believe they're showing?  

"They" are:


Those who call for Trump's impeachment, but when asked, "On what grounds?", have no answer

Yeah. Well don't you think it's time to revisit this one, Jack?  

Sure looks like there are several issues that can serve as grounds for impeachment... don't you think?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 
Sure looks like there are several issues that can serve as grounds for impeachment... don't you think?

Go on.

Sorry for the delay... got distracted by the revelation that the FBI opened an investigation into whether Trump was acting as an agent of Russia before Mueller even got started.

While we wait for Mueller to complete his investigation, one of the most obvious grounds for impeachment is Trump's violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.   Undoubtedly an impeachable offense, don't you think?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 While we wait for Mueller to complete his investigation, one of the most obvious grounds for impeachment is Trump's violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.   Undoubtedly an impeachable offense, don't you think?

Could well be. Just have to put the process in motion and see what does or does not stick.

Then there is the fact that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator with Cohen in a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. (The payoffs to MacDougal and Daniels)  That's a felony... and another impeachable offense.

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 While we wait for Mueller to complete his investigation, one of the most obvious grounds for impeachment is Trump's violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.   Undoubtedly an impeachable offense, don't you think?

Could well be. Just have to put the process in motion and see what does or does not stick.

Then there is the fact that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator with Cohen in a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. (The payoffs to MacDougal and Daniels)  That's a felony... and another impeachable offense.

Yeah!
And then there's this!!!!


https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/15/cnn-joan-walsh-erin-burnett-trump-salad-sexist/

CNN Panel Melts Down Over Trump’s ‘Sexist’ Salad Joke
11:25 AM 01/15/2019 | Media
Amber Athey | White House Correspondent

A CNN panel accused President Donald Trump of being “sexist” Monday night because the president made a joke about first lady Melania Trump making salads.
The president cracked the joke to the national championship-winning Clemson football team during their Monday visit to the White House. Trump noted that because of the shutdown, he had to personally purchase a spread of fast food for the team’s visit, and joked that his food choices were better than having the first lady make them “some quick little salads.” (RELATED: CNN Cries Sexism During Discussion On Hillary’s Health)
CNN anchor Erin Burnett and analyst Joan Walsh accused the president of being sexist for assuming that the first lady would prepare the salads.
“That’s appalling,” Walsh said. “It seems to me that the president will not be happy until there is one single female Republican voter in the country. It’s incredibly sexist.”
“Sometimes what people say when they’re being funny exposes exactly who they are and what they think,” Burnett agreed.
Scott Jennings, the lone Republican on the panel, tried to defend the president’s attempt at humor but was shut down by the two women.humor but was shut down by the two women.
“I certainly didn’t take his comments to be sexist,” Jennings said.
“So then Mike Pence maybe could have made the salads?” Walsh shot back.
“How in the world do you not perceive that as sexist?” Burnett scoffed.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 While we wait for Mueller to complete his investigation, one of the most obvious grounds for impeachment is Trump's violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.   Undoubtedly an impeachable offense, don't you think?

Could well be. Just have to put the process in motion and see what does or does not stick.

Then there is the fact that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator with Cohen in a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. (The payoffs to MacDougal and Daniels)  That's a felony... and another impeachable offense.

Yeah!
And then there's this!!!!


https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/15/cnn-joan-walsh-erin-burnett-trump-salad-sexist/

CNN Panel Melts Down Over Trump’s ‘Sexist’ Salad Joke
11:25 AM 01/15/2019 | Media
Amber Athey | White House Correspondent

A CNN panel accused President Donald Trump of being “sexist” Monday night because the president made a joke about first lady Melania Trump making salads.
The president cracked the joke to the national championship-winning Clemson football team during their Monday visit to the White House. Trump noted that because of the shutdown, he had to personally purchase a spread of fast food for the team’s visit, and joked that his food choices were better than having the first lady make them “some quick little salads.” (RELATED: CNN Cries Sexism During Discussion On Hillary’s Health)
CNN anchor Erin Burnett and analyst Joan Walsh accused the president of being sexist for assuming that the first lady would prepare the salads.
“That’s appalling,” Walsh said. “It seems to me that the president will not be happy until there is one single female Republican voter in the country. It’s incredibly sexist.”
“Sometimes what people say when they’re being funny exposes exactly who they are and what they think,” Burnett agreed.
Scott Jennings, the lone Republican on the panel, tried to defend the president’s attempt at humor but was shut down by the two women.humor but was shut down by the two women.
“I certainly didn’t take his comments to be sexist,” Jennings said.
“So then Mike Pence maybe could have made the salads?” Walsh shot back.
“How in the world do you not perceive that as sexist?” Burnett scoffed.

Yeah, well it is sexist...  that's why it's funny... but I'm kinda twisted...

Scorpion wrote:

Sorry for the delay... got distracted by the revelation that the FBI opened an investigation into whether Trump was acting as an agent of Russia before Mueller even got started.

Well, if the Buzzfeed revelation is correct, Trump was compromised even before the Iowa caucus, thanks to his willingness to work with sanctioned banks and the GRU .

Business over country.

Hence the need for the Emolument Clause.

However this plays out, Putin wins. He's already done enough damage to the country. The way the GOP is circling the wagons around Trump, going as far to call for a disbanding of the FBI... Long term damage to this country's intelligence community that was already left hurting by the number of jobs unfulfilled because anyone capable of filling that position recognized what a clear and present danger he is to the country. Add in the damage to the economy thanks to the shutdown, not to mention how an impeachment will go with such monumentally stupid gun loving Trump fans.

It's going to be wildly entertaining.

As if on cue: https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/01/18/sean-hannity-even-if-trump-did-order-cohen-lie-congress-it-doesnt-matter-because-democrats-are/222576

You've read the report?

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

You've read the report?

No, I haven't.
While some children can't help but hold on to their fantasies, others manage to grow up and relinquish them.

You haven't even read Barr's memo... have you, Jack?

The Atlantic has a decent article dealing with all of this... here are a few excerpts, but this  really should be read in full...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/barrs-summary-omits-key-aspect-muellers-report/585703/

Quote :

Mueller’s full report has not been made available to the public yet, so it’s not clear whether it sets forth everything the special counsel’s office learned over the course of its nearly two-year investigation—including findings about conduct that was perhaps objectionable but not criminal—or whether it is more tailored and explains only Mueller’s prosecution and declination decisions. But national-security and intelligence experts tell me that Mueller’s decision not to charge Trump or his campaign team with a conspiracy is far from dispositive, and that the underlying evidence the special counsel amassed over two years could prove as useful as a conspiracy charge to understanding the full scope of Russia’s election interference in 2016.

Quote :

A counterintelligence probe, he added, would ask more than whether the evidence collected is sufficient to obtain a criminal conviction—it could provide necessary information to the public about why the president is making certain policy decisions. “The American people rightly should expect more from their public servants than merely avoiding criminal liability,” Kris said.

Quote :

Mueller’s mandate, given to him by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, empowered him to investigate not only any “coordination” between the campaign and Russia, but any “links” between them as well. Barr’s summary does not describe how Mueller investigated or came to explain the many interactions the campaign had with various Russians during the election.

It's too early to make predictions at this point.  "Spiking the football" before all the facts are in rarely turns out well...

happy jack wrote:

I'm not spiking the football.

happy jack previously wrote:

Now that that has been settled...

"I wasn't declaring the game won when I declared the game won" is my new favorite happyism.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

You've read the report?

No, I haven't.
While some children can't help but hold on to their fantasies, others manage to grow up and relinquish them.

You haven't even read Barr's memo... have you, Jack?

The Atlantic has a decent article dealing with all of this... here are a few excerpts, but this  really should be read in full...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/barrs-summary-omits-key-aspect-muellers-report/585703/

Quote :

Mueller’s full report has not been made available to the public yet, so it’s not clear whether it sets forth everything the special counsel’s office learned over the course of its nearly two-year investigation—including findings about conduct that was perhaps objectionable but not criminal—or whether it is more tailored and explains only Mueller’s prosecution and declination decisions. But national-security and intelligence experts tell me that Mueller’s decision not to charge Trump or his campaign team with a conspiracy is far from dispositive, and that the underlying evidence the special counsel amassed over two years could prove as useful as a conspiracy charge to understanding the full scope of Russia’s election interference in 2016.

Quote :

A counterintelligence probe, he added, would ask more than whether the evidence collected is sufficient to obtain a criminal conviction—it could provide necessary information to the public about why the president is making certain policy decisions. “The American people rightly should expect more from their public servants than merely avoiding criminal liability,” Kris said.

Quote :

Mueller’s mandate, given to him by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, empowered him to investigate not only any “coordination” between the campaign and Russia, but any “links” between them as well. Barr’s summary does not describe how Mueller investigated or came to explain the many interactions the campaign had with various Russians during the election.

It's too early to make predictions at this point.  "Spiking the football" before all the facts are in rarely turns out well...

Yes, I have read the memo, and no, I'm not spiking the football.
However, I saw nothing in the memo to indicate any criminality.
Is there something that you saw in the memo that would indicate otherwise?

It leaves me with nothing but more questions... and just because a crime cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed...

Barr wrote:

The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sally-yates-william-barr-should-release-the-full-mueller-report-as-soon-as-possible/2019/03/29/32f5e6d2-5236-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.html?utm_term=.8bed9f0986b9

Here's a couple of points by Sally Yates about Barr's letter...

Quote :

Barr’s letter leaves important questions unanswered concerning what then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates knew about Russian interference, and how they responded to Russian overtures to assist the campaign.

While Barr’s letter states that the investigation did not establish that the campaign reached an agreement with the Russian government to take actions to impact the election in Trump’s favor, it reveals that the campaign did field “multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.” Yet President Trump and others have repeatedly claimed that they had no contact with Russians, or knowledge that Russians were acting to assist his campaign.

Moreover, the Trump campaign did not bring the Russian outreach to the attention of law enforcement but secretly allowed a foreign adversary’s assistance.

Remarkably, after the release of the Barr letter — which makes it undeniable that the Russians were seeking to help the Trump campaign — the president still denies it. Why? Why was the Trump campaign willing to allow the help of one of the country’s foremost geopolitical adversaries rather than report the overtures to law enforcement? And, as importantly, does the role that the Russians played in his election have any bearing on Trump’s current approach toward Russia? Only by seeing the full Mueller report can Congress and the American people make an informed assessment.

happy jack wrote:

As I said to Scorpion, I've seen nothing incriminating in the memo. If you have, please share.
And if the memo is inaccurately portraying the actual report, I think that Mueller or one of his undoubtedly numerous assistants would have spoken up by now.
Don't you?

Absolutely not.  Mueller's report is now in hands of the Attorney General.  At this point, it's not Mueller's place to contradict the AG unless he is called before Congress or something  and his testimony indicates that Barr is incorrect.  Mueller did his job... he produced the report,  and now we need to see the report before we can draw any conclusions.  There are a lot of questions that are still unanswered and they won't be answered until Mueller's entire report is released.