as for pa. too bad the dems dont have a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Pelosi war-vet candidate to run in *every* district. bummer. maxine waters would be pissed though....
(03-16-2018 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]as for pa. too bad the dems dont have a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Pelosi war-vet candidate to run in *every* district. bummer. maxine waters would be pissed though....
Not sure his positions would fly as "pro-life" or "pro-gun" in a Republican primary. But yeah, he was well suited to this district. Like the GA Senate election there were definitely some unusual circumstances, but still a surprising result.
(Also worth noting that there was a special election because the pro-life "family values" Republican resigned when he was caught encouraging his mistress to have an abortion...)
(03-16-2018 03:25 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 03:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]-McMaster reported to be out, with Bolton (!) set to replace him.
John or Michael?
Michael would do a better job, IMHO.
(03-16-2018 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Pelosi war-vet candidate
If they nominate somebody like that in 2020, they have a chance to get my vote.
But the middle type candidates don't do well in the national party. They will probably just find another far leftie who will run on the same old "they are racists" platform. Maybe another old and tired white man, like Biden.
(03-16-2018 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Pelosi war-vet candidate
If they nominate somebody like that in 2020, they have a chance to get my vote.
But the middle type candidates don't do well in the national party. They will probably just find another far leftie who will run on the same old "they are racists" platform. Maybe another old and tired white man, like Biden.
In all seriousness, I think Kerry (14 years ago) was the last time they nominated an "old and tired white man." By the 2020 elections, new voters will have been 2 when that election occurred.
In the same life span of those kids, the Rep nominees have been Bush, McCain, Romney, and Trump. This isn't a comment saying one is good or bad, just commenting in general on the recent trends.
As an aside, why do people hate Pelosi so much? I mean I don't love Boehner or Ryan, but I don't hate them the way Rs seem to unanimously hate Pelosi. I don't love Pelosi either, for that matter.
Did dislike Newt quite a bit, and have disliked McConnell since he was Jefferson County Commissioner.
Didn't hate Hastert, though it turns out he was probably the worst of all of them across parties.
But Republican visceral dislike of Pelosi seems like the visceral dislike of Trump, i.e. it seems very personal and beyond politics.
I get the latter, but not the former.
(03-16-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Pelosi war-vet candidate
If they nominate somebody like that in 2020, they have a chance to get my vote.
But the middle type candidates don't do well in the national party. They will probably just find another far leftie who will run on the same old "they are racists" platform. Maybe another old and tired white man, like Biden.
In all seriousness, I think Kerry (14 years ago) was the last time they nominated an "old and tired white man." By the 2020 elections, new voters will have been 2 when that election occurred.
In the same life span of those kids, the Rep nominees have been Bush, McCain, Romney, and Trump. This isn't a comment saying one is good or bad, just commenting in general on the recent trends.
Well, who were the four Democrats in the primaries in 2016? All white, mostly men, none of them very young, and the outsiders people kept hoping would jump in? Biden and Warren. Both white, both old, half of them male.
The Dems keep presenting themselves as the party of people of color, of youngsters, and of women.
I think maybe this time it will be the turn of somebody younger. Harris hits all three desired demographics. she may win. I used to like Booker, but can they go back to nominating a man?
If Trump does not run again, the Republican choice will be interesting to see.
Sometimes, when the primaries are not rigged, surprises happen. See 2016. I have several people in mind I would like to see as nominee of one party or another.
(03-16-2018 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Pelosi war-vet candidate
If they nominate somebody like that in 2020, they have a chance to get my vote.
But the middle type candidates don't do well in the national party. They will probably just find another far leftie who will run on the same old "they are racists" platform. Maybe another old and tired white man, like Biden.
In all seriousness, I think Kerry (14 years ago) was the last time they nominated an "old and tired white man." By the 2020 elections, new voters will have been 2 when that election occurred.
In the same life span of those kids, the Rep nominees have been Bush, McCain, Romney, and Trump. This isn't a comment saying one is good or bad, just commenting in general on the recent trends.
Well, who were the four Democrats in the primaries in 2016? All white, mostly men, none of them very young, and the outsiders people kept hoping would jump in? Biden and Warren. Both white, both old, half of them male.
The Dems keep presenting themselves as the party of people of color, of youngsters, and of women.
I think maybe this time it will be the turn of somebody younger. Harris hits all three desired demographics. she may win. I used to like Booker, but can they go back to nominating a man?
If Trump does not run again, the Republican choice will be interesting to see.
Sometimes, when the primaries are not rigged, surprises happen. See 2016. I have several people in mind I would like to see as nominee of one party or another.
On a national level, especially for the highest office, the Dem nominees were definitely older, whiter, and slanted more male in 2016 - and I imagine some of that had to do with the whole, being Clinton's turn thing. But the reason the Dems present themselves as you suggest, is because they are, across the board the party of color, of youngsters, and of women.
In the House/Senate there are 78 Dem women to 26 Rep women. Dems still could have better female representation (that's only 1/3 of Congress).
In the House/Senate the Dem/Rep breakdown by race is: 48/3 African-American, 30/13 Hispanic/Latino, and 16/0 Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander.
And a random bit of research found that ~65% of Reps, compared to ~40% of Dems, are white males over the age of 50.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...ies-repub/
(03-16-2018 04:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]In the House/Senate there are 78 Dem women to 26 Rep women. Dems still could have better female representation (that's only 1/3 of Congress).
In the House/Senate the Dem/Rep breakdown by race is: 48/3 African-American, 30/13 Hispanic/Latino, and 16/0 Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander.
And a random bit of research found that ~65% of Reps, compared to ~40% of Dems, are white males over the age of 50.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...ies-repub/
All of which might explain why the GOP national candidates have tended to be white males. Don't parties generally nominate from within their ranks?
I am sure that the GOP would love to nominate a black, hispanic, femaile, and or kid, but they just don't find a lot of them in their ranks. it's not because the GOP is a party of racists, as the DNC might suggest (and Hillary did suggest - twice), but because you cannot make people change parties unless they are willing to give both a hard look. Someday, the Republicans will nominate a Condoleza Rice or a Tim Scott. Who knows, that might happen in 2020.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz
“His firing — which was recommended by the FBI office that handles discipline — stems from a Justice Department inspector general investigation that found McCabe authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to the media about a Clinton-related case, then misled investigators about his actions in the matter...”
Looks smoky to me. We have to have a special counsel appointed to investigate, so we will know for sure.
(03-16-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz
“His firing — which was recommended by the FBI office that handles discipline — stems from a Justice Department inspector general investigation that found McCabe authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to the media about a Clinton-related case, then misled investigators about his actions in the matter...”
Looks smoky to me. We have to have a special counsel appointed to investigate, so we will know for sure.
Indeed! :)
There seems to be no doubt that McCabe lied to the FBI and deserved to be sacked, as recommended by the Inspector General's office. The fact that it was done before he could claim his retirement benefits is the right move, and excellent stewardship of public funds.
McCabe's lawyer now complains that this action "violates any sense of decency and basic principles of fairness." That's pretty rich.
Imagine how the FBI would treat a civilian who lied to the FBI -- retirement benefits would be the least of his concerns.
McCabe's termination does perhaps deviate from the usual double standard in which government officials, generals, and corporate executives are treated much more softly than ordinary folks. But deviation from that standard is exactly what makes this termination an example of decency and fairness rather than a violation of them.
(03-17-2018 09:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz
“His firing — which was recommended by the FBI office that handles discipline — stems from a Justice Department inspector general investigation that found McCabe authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to the media about a Clinton-related case, then misled investigators about his actions in the matter...”
Looks smoky to me. We have to have a special counsel appointed to investigate, so we will know for sure.
Indeed! :)
There seems to be no doubt that McCabe lied to the FBI and deserved to be sacked, as recommended by the Inspector General's office. The fact that it was done before he could claim his retirement benefits is the right move, and excellent stewardship of public funds.
McCabe's lawyer now complains that this action "violates any sense of decency and basic principles of fairness." That's pretty rich.
Imagine how the FBI would treat a civilian who lied to the FBI -- retirement benefits would be the least of his concerns.
McCabe's termination does perhaps deviate from the usual double standard in which government officials, generals, and corporate executives are treated much more softly than ordinary folks. But deviation from that standard is exactly what makes this termination an example of decency and fairness rather than a violation of them.
There certainly is doubt. If anything because the DOJ is admonishing him for lack of candor, and not for lying.
(03-17-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2018 09:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz
“His firing — which was recommended by the FBI office that handles discipline — stems from a Justice Department inspector general investigation that found McCabe authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to the media about a Clinton-related case, then misled investigators about his actions in the matter...”
Looks smoky to me. We have to have a special counsel appointed to investigate, so we will know for sure.
Indeed! :)
There seems to be no doubt that McCabe lied to the FBI and deserved to be sacked, as recommended by the Inspector General's office. The fact that it was done before he could claim his retirement benefits is the right move, and excellent stewardship of public funds.
McCabe's lawyer now complains that this action "violates any sense of decency and basic principles of fairness." That's pretty rich.
Imagine how the FBI would treat a civilian who lied to the FBI -- retirement benefits would be the least of his concerns.
McCabe's termination does perhaps deviate from the usual double standard in which government officials, generals, and corporate executives are treated much more softly than ordinary folks. But deviation from that standard is exactly what makes this termination an example of decency and fairness rather than a violation of them.
There certainly is doubt. If anything because the DOJ is admonishing him for lack of candor, and not for lying.
Lack of candor is FBI-speak for lying to the FBI, the basis for all those OOJ indictments.
My source for that is a retired FBI SSA speaking on GMA this morning.
(03-17-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2018 09:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz
“His firing — which was recommended by the FBI office that handles discipline — stems from a Justice Department inspector general investigation that found McCabe authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to the media about a Clinton-related case, then misled investigators about his actions in the matter...”
Looks smoky to me. We have to have a special counsel appointed to investigate, so we will know for sure.
Indeed! :)
There seems to be no doubt that McCabe lied to the FBI and deserved to be sacked, as recommended by the Inspector General's office. The fact that it was done before he could claim his retirement benefits is the right move, and excellent stewardship of public funds.
McCabe's lawyer now complains that this action "violates any sense of decency and basic principles of fairness." That's pretty rich.
Imagine how the FBI would treat a civilian who lied to the FBI -- retirement benefits would be the least of his concerns.
McCabe's termination does perhaps deviate from the usual double standard in which government officials, generals, and corporate executives are treated much more softly than ordinary folks. But deviation from that standard is exactly what makes this termination an example of decency and fairness rather than a violation of them.
There certainly is doubt. If anything because the DOJ is admonishing him for lack of candor, and not for lying.
No, there does not seem to be doubt. The wording of the AG's press release is not evidence of "doubt".
(03-17-2018 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2018 09:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz
“His firing — which was recommended by the FBI office that handles discipline — stems from a Justice Department inspector general investigation that found McCabe authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to the media about a Clinton-related case, then misled investigators about his actions in the matter...”
Looks smoky to me. We have to have a special counsel appointed to investigate, so we will know for sure.
Indeed! :)
There seems to be no doubt that McCabe lied to the FBI and deserved to be sacked, as recommended by the Inspector General's office. The fact that it was done before he could claim his retirement benefits is the right move, and excellent stewardship of public funds.
McCabe's lawyer now complains that this action "violates any sense of decency and basic principles of fairness." That's pretty rich.
Imagine how the FBI would treat a civilian who lied to the FBI -- retirement benefits would be the least of his concerns.
McCabe's termination does perhaps deviate from the usual double standard in which government officials, generals, and corporate executives are treated much more softly than ordinary folks. But deviation from that standard is exactly what makes this termination an example of decency and fairness rather than a violation of them.
There certainly is doubt. If anything because the DOJ is admonishing him for lack of candor, and not for lying.
Lack of candor is FBI-speak for lying to the FBI, the basis for all those OOJ indictments.
Of course, if Comey had been editing the memo, he might have come up with a clever phrase . . .
(03-17-2018 09:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2018 09:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-16-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz
“His firing — which was recommended by the FBI office that handles discipline — stems from a Justice Department inspector general investigation that found McCabe authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to the media about a Clinton-related case, then misled investigators about his actions in the matter...”
Looks smoky to me. We have to have a special counsel appointed to investigate, so we will know for sure.
Indeed! :)
There seems to be no doubt that McCabe lied to the FBI and deserved to be sacked, as recommended by the Inspector General's office. The fact that it was done before he could claim his retirement benefits is the right move, and excellent stewardship of public funds.
McCabe's lawyer now complains that this action "violates any sense of decency and basic principles of fairness." That's pretty rich.
Imagine how the FBI would treat a civilian who lied to the FBI -- retirement benefits would be the least of his concerns.
McCabe's termination does perhaps deviate from the usual double standard in which government officials, generals, and corporate executives are treated much more softly than ordinary folks. But deviation from that standard is exactly what makes this termination an example of decency and fairness rather than a violation of them.
There certainly is doubt. If anything because the DOJ is admonishing him for lack of candor, and not for lying.
No, there does not seem to be doubt. The wording of the AG's press release is not evidence of "doubt".
My understanding is that lack of candor and lying are distinctly different - which is my point. I believe lack of candor amounts to, basically, intentionally leaving relevant information out of testimony. So being charged with lack of candor doesn’t necessarily mean McCabe lied about anything. But lack of candor isn’t still of a durable offense, but McCabe is disputing that he lacked candor.
https://www.federaldisability.com/blog/2...ck-candor/
We need an investigation, so that these questions are cleared up. Next special counsel in line, front and center.
(03-17-2018 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We need an investigation, so that these questions are cleared up. Next special counsel in line, front and center.
I’m just hoping they release the report. Trump’s giddy response on Twitter was a bit much.
(03-17-2018 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2018 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We need an investigation, so that these questions are cleared up. Next special counsel in line, front and center.
I’m just hoping they release the report. Trump’s giddy response on Twitter was a bit much.
Why would they release the report? Is that SOP when an agent is fired?
Seriously, though, there is so much rotten or questionable in the FBI’s behavior that an investigation is called for.
![[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y1ywQjBG9XA/maxresdefault.jpg)