(08-17-2018 08:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 06:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's say your goal was not to help Trump, but merely to sow dissent and discord. Hillary is odds-on to win, and by a wide margin. So what do you do? Whom do you back? Why Trump, of course, since the opposition will come from the loser's side. Only he didn't lose.

But you've still achieved discord and dissent on a massive scale.

As OO said, perfectly logical. I also think, at a minimum, they knew the Trump campaign was likely to be more open to advances, thus creating kompromat. But it's also perfectly logical that Russia had multiple goals, which is what our intelligence agencies have said. One goal, in particular, was to hurt Hillary because of Putin's personal vendetta against her due to her comments on Putin's election victories, and how he viewed her as being the culprit behind some of the political uprisings during her tenure as SofS. Another was that Clinton was also likely to be very hawkish against Russia, should she have won.

I don't see why you need to diminish this aspect of the Russian interference, it doesn't itself mean that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign.

But getting to a bigger issue I've been thinking about and that I don't understand. Why does it seem like there is always a dismissal of the actions of many people within the Trump administration for how they have handled themselves?

First of all, multiple officials within the campaign lied about their interactions with officials of the Russian government MULTIPLE times, why are some so eager to dismiss those lies? Especially when, in one example, Trump Jr himself finally admitted what his meeting was about after lying about the reasoning behind the meeting numerous times. That alone is troubling behavior and can't fit the narrative some like to use that he just forgot about the meeting. Trump Jr and Trump intentionally tried to cover up that meeting, and that's OK?

Second, why not be critical of an entire campaign that, when confronted with a situation where a representative with the Russian government is trying to provide information to their campaign, did not turn that information over to authorities? Had the Trump campaign been forthright from the beginning, there would be no doubt that no one within the campaign was conspiring with Russia.

It seems to me that it's easy for some to quickly flip the script and try and chastise people like me for not being even-handed, when they themselves are forgetting to even consider the implications and ethics of the actions that many people in the Trump campaign took, regardless of whether they were part of a broader collusion narrative.

And I'd appreciate it if the responses to these didn't turn into an immediate deflection to the Steele dossier, because that doesn't actually answer the questions.

Well, I guess you will have to be more specific about who lied and what they lied about. I have no idea, for example, what lie to the FBI Flynn is pleading to. Was it that he did not collude? or was it that he met Joe on Tuesday when it was actually Wednesday? I don't know. If you know the specifics, please tell me.

You seem to center on the Trump Tower (TT) meeting. Like Owl69 says, i view that as a big nothingburger. They met, nothing happened. BFD. But it is the centerpiece of your conspiracy theory. OTOH, the Steele dossier, which you want to hear nothing about, is a parallel effort to dig up dirt from Russian sources. It doesn't matter how direct or indirect, they are the same, and you will not see that. Thus the lack of evenhandedness.

Had someone in Hillary's campaign met directly with that same russian lawyer, then kicked her out with nothing for nothing, I would not be screaming conspiracy over that. More like Hurray for them. Seems like a mighty weak peg on which to hang your hat.

Campaigns try to dig up dirt on opponents. Fact of life. If the source is Norwegian, that does not indicate any sort of collusian with the Norwegian government.

People in campaign sometimes meet with Russians. Sometime they shake hands at a state dinner. Sometimes they sit on a panel in 2015. So what?

Usually the simplest explanation is the best. Leaving out all the "could haves" and "might ofs" that constitute the main body of the conspiracy theory would help a lot. Russians wanting to meddle? A given. A conspiracy between unknown people in the "Trump campaign" and the Russian government? a big, big reach. BTW. if all the Russians wanted was to sow discord and distrust into our election processes, the Democrats and people like you are their biggest allies in their biggest success. The ongoing hue and cray about the completely unnecessary and possibly illegal Mueller probe is the Russians greatest hope achieved. They have succeeded in transforming the all-Trump, all the the time "news" channels into a russian tool for sowing distrust. Who is helping them make the American people distrustful of our elections. The people pointing to the boogeymen.

The TT meeting was nothing. If you want to be more evenhanded, admit that the machinations to get the Steele dossier are pretty much the same thing, at the least.

(08-17-2018 08:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 06:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's say your goal was not to help Trump, but merely to sow dissent and discord. Hillary is odds-on to win, and by a wide margin. So what do you do? Whom do you back? Why Trump, of course, since the opposition will come from the loser's side. Only he didn't lose.

But you've still achieved discord and dissent on a massive scale.

As OO said, perfectly logical. I also think, at a minimum, they knew the Trump campaign was likely to be more open to advances, thus creating kompromat. But it's also perfectly logical that Russia had multiple goals, which is what our intelligence agencies have said. One goal, in particular, was to hurt Hillary because of Putin's personal vendetta against her due to her comments on Putin's election victories, and how he viewed her as being the culprit behind some of the political uprisings during her tenure as SofS. Another was that Clinton was also likely to be very hawkish against Russia, should she have won.

I don't see why you need to diminish this aspect of the Russian interference, it doesn't itself mean that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign.

But getting to a bigger issue I've been thinking about and that I don't understand. Why does it seem like there is always a dismissal of the actions of many people within the Trump administration for how they have handled themselves?

First of all, multiple officials within the campaign lied about their interactions with officials of the Russian government MULTIPLE times, why are some so eager to dismiss those lies? Especially when, in one example, Trump Jr himself finally admitted what his meeting was about after lying about the reasoning behind the meeting numerous times. That alone is troubling behavior and can't fit the narrative some like to use that he just forgot about the meeting. Trump Jr and Trump intentionally tried to cover up that meeting, and that's OK?

Second, why not be critical of an entire campaign that, when confronted with a situation where a representative with the Russian government is trying to provide information to their campaign, did not turn that information over to authorities? Had the Trump campaign been forthright from the beginning, there would be no doubt that no one within the campaign was conspiring with Russia.

It seems to me that it's easy for some to quickly flip the script and try and chastise people like me for not being even-handed, when they themselves are forgetting to even consider the implications and ethics of the actions that many people in the Trump campaign took, regardless of whether they were part of a broader collusion narrative.

And I'd appreciate it if the responses to these didn't turn into an immediate deflection to the Steele dossier, because that doesn't actually answer the questions.

Well, I guess you will have to be more specific about who lied and what they lied about. I have no idea, for example, what lie to the FBI Flynn is pleading to. Was it that he did not collude? or was it that he met Joe on Tuesday when it was actually Wednesday? I don't know. If you know the specifics, please tell me.

You seem to center on the Trump Tower (TT) meeting. Like Owl69 says, i view that as a big nothingburger. They met, nothing happened. BFD. But it is the centerpiece of your conspiracy theory. OTOH, the Steele dossier, which you want to hear nothing about, is a parallel effort to dig up dirt from Russian sources. It doesn't matter how direct or indirect, they are the same, and you will not see that. Thus the lack of evenhandedness.

Had someone in Hillary's campaign met directly with that same russian lawyer, then kicked her out with nothing for nothing, I would not be screaming conspiracy over that. More like Hurray for them. Seems like a mighty weak peg on which to hang your hat.

Campaigns try to dig up dirt on opponents. Fact of life. If the source is Norwegian, that does not indicate any sort of collusian with the Norwegian government.

People in campaign sometimes meet with Russians. Sometime they shake hands at a state dinner. Sometimes they sit on a panel in 2015. So what?

Usually the simplest explanation is the best. Leaving out all the "could haves" and "might ofs" that constitute the main body of the conspiracy theory would help a lot. Russians wanting to meddle? A given. A conspiracy between unknown people in the "Trump campaign" and the Russian government? a big, big reach. BTW. if all the Russians wanted was to sow discord and distrust into our election processes, the Democrats and people like you are their biggest allies in their biggest success. The ongoing hue and cray about the completely unnecessary and possibly illegal Mueller probe is the Russians greatest hope achieved. They have succeeded in transforming the all-Trump, all the the time "news" channels into a russian tool for sowing distrust. Who is helping them make the American people distrustful of our elections. The people pointing to the boogeymen.

The TT meeting was nothing. If you want to be more evenhanded, admit that the machinations to get the Steele dossier are pretty much the same thing, at the least.

(08-17-2018 08:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't see why you need to diminish this aspect of the Russian interference, it doesn't itself mean that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign.

This prompts another question in my mind. First, I don't think anyone is diminishing this aspect of the Russian interference.

But my question is, why is this the ONLY aspect of Russian interference that you seem to care about?

Hell, Russia has been doing everything they could to interfere for years. So has China, and a host of other countries. So have we to all of them. Remember hacking Angela Merkel's cell phone? That's how the game is played. If you ain't interfering, then you ain't trying.

So why dismiss the obvious conclusion that Russia probably hacked Hillary's server, and why not address the likely consequences of that? Why dismiss the fact that Russia is still hacking us today (as were are them)? Why hasn't Mueller focused on ways to insulate ourselves against hacking, instead of whether Manafort filed a tax disclosure form 10+ years ago? From my perspective, what I've seen so far looks more like a witch hunt than a serious investigation. That may change, but it hasn't yet.

Just for the record, since you claim that I am one-sided, I have made it pretty clear that the Benghazi investigation was a witch hunt or a whitewash, depending on which side you are talking about, when a proper investigation was warranted but never occurred. That is what was wrong with it. Of course, IIRC it did turn up the shenanigans with Hillary's server so it was probably not a total waste. But we still don't know who screwed up, and nobody has been prosecuted for screwing up, and those are both unacceptable results in my mind.

Why did it only matter when somebody hacked Podesta and the DNC? Why is that the only one you seem to care about? And if we are going to focus on that one, why not make damn sure that we know exactly what happened? The idea that it was "the Russians" who hacked is based, as far as I can tell, on intelligence estimates, which are guesses, not facts. Ever see "Hunt for Red October"? Did Jack Ryan have facts or make lucky guesses? That's fiction, of course, but that's how intel usually works. Joe Rochefort and Bletchley Park were exceptions, but that's what they were, exceptions that (fortunately for us) went against the run of play. Against those intel estimates we have Assange's statement that the Russians were not the source, and some calculations by IT folks that I don't fully understand which suggest that the transfer of data had to occur in a way other than an outside hack. I don't know enough to resolve that conflict, but I know it is a conflict, and I know that any case for Russian collusion with the Trump campaign pretty much falls apart if "the Russians" didn't hack the information from Podesta and the DNC. And since no truly independent party has ever examined the affected servers (and probably can't now), how can we know for sure what happened?

(06-20-2018 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 04:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Haven't posted much here lately, and honestly, I think I'm done. After the horrific things being done in our name at the border and the hateful and racist language being used to justify it, I have lost interest in debating anyone who still supports this monster.

Was it because I used the words "witch hunt"?
Maybe I can get an answer here. What do you think our immigration policies should be?
If you can, answer in in the positive mode - it should be this and this and this.
Also, I don't know of any hateful and/or racist things being said. Could you give some examples and/or links?

I can think of hateful things being said. For one, "monster" above.

Here's some hateful words

(08-17-2018 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We should be able to evaluate either campaign in a vacuum and not rely on another's opinion of how the opposing party reacted in a similar situation to inform us.

Unfortunately one campaign's Russia interactions is amazingly intertwined with the others.

(08-17-2018 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, I guess you will have to be more specific about who lied and what they lied about. I have no idea, for example, what lie to the FBI Flynn is pleading to. Was it that he did not collude? or was it that he met Joe on Tuesday when it was actually Wednesday? I don't know. If you know the specifics, please tell me.

The major issue with the Flynn matter is that the facts there indicated that the scenario was precisely set to be a 'perjury trap' from the get go. Picture perfect scenario of a sandbag from the get-go.

(08-17-2018 03:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, I guess you will have to be more specific about who lied and what they lied about. I have no idea, for example, what lie to the FBI Flynn is pleading to. Was it that he did not collude? or was it that he met Joe on Tuesday when it was actually Wednesday? I don't know. If you know the specifics, please tell me.

The major issue with the Flynn matter is that the facts there indicated that the scenario was precisely set to be a 'perjury trap' from the get go. Picture perfect scenario of a sandbag from the get-go.

Did Clinton testify under oath to the FBI, or was she accorded special treatment? or was that the Benghazi investigation?

(08-17-2018 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But when you're constantly on the side of the fence of defending the Trump campaign, it doesn't appear to me as if you think there is anything wrong with what the Trump campaign did.

I guess if defending the Trump campaign means 'they went, they cut it off when there was no there there, where's the beef' then mea culpa.

Show me more than the gossamer crap there and I might not 'defend' it to that extent.

As for Flynn, with all due respect, he was absolutely sandbagged. No ifs, ands, or buts. I do have a problem with that and the manner that it was orchestrated. But I guess I'll put you in to the camp of 'perjury traps are fun and dandy for all'. Your choice, I guess.

The reason for the supposed deflections is that at the very least equal 'bad ****' happened emanating from Russians (through cutouts of course, that seem apparently to be a very copacetic means to handle that) through the Hillary camp.

The heavy hand of a trio or quad of people in DOJ and the FBI exacerbated the issue, along with the heavy hand and light issue of a crapload of FISA requests from, say, the ambassador to the UN, kind of lend to the crap air around the issue.

Yet, for some strange as **** issue, there doesnt seem to be the earnestness nor the impetus to investigate the potential weaponization of both the intelligence apapratuses and the the DOJ in the presidential campaign, let alone in the role in trying to bring Trump to a standstill through the same mechanisms.

I mean, Obama already tried to weaponize the IRS, so it is a tad concerning that no one on one side of the political divide really seems to give a rat's ass about the potential actions here. But walking away from a meeting is oh, so bad.

If there is more to the conspiracy, I might be persuaded to join your paean on a soapbox. But absent anything else what I see on the TT issue is a monstrous fing nothingburger.

But if you got your rocks off about the perjury trap set up for Flynn, I am sure you are still overjoyed about the morphing of 'collusion' (whatever the fk that is, mind you) into the 'obstruction' mantra that progressives seem to be religiously chanting these days. I guess whatever it takes to remove him from office is worth it to you all.

To be fair, I see nothing wrong with taking that meeting in TT. Same meeting in Clinton HQ, no problem. Campaigns are all, I repeat, ALL, always looking for negative stuff on the opposition. If a Russian knows you committed child rape or murder, for example, learning about it from a Russian is the proper thing to do. If a Norwegian has the info, learn about it from the Norwegian. You don't have to sell missile plans to do this.

What riles me up is:

A. the insistence that this nothingburger is the cornerstone of the collusion accusation

B. The double standard employed to make TT bad, Steele dossier good.

It seems to me y'all are grasping at straws and defining them as tree trunks. I am not defending Trump so much as I am defending common sense and fairness.

I'm not defending Trump so much as I am rejecting nonsense.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sus...rump-tower

Smoky.

(08-17-2018 08:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sus...rump-tower

Smoky.

I'm positive all Glenn did was tell Natalia his brownie recipe in the 'before dinner'; and Natalia was so enthralled with it she called him up for the repeat dinner so she could pass her borscht recipe back. Kind of like all Bill and Loretta talked about on the tarmac was grandkids and the poopy diapers.

(08-17-2018 08:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 08:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sus...rump-tower

Smoky.

I'm positive all Glenn did was tell Natalia his brownie recipe in the 'before dinner'; and Natalia was so enthralled with it she called him up for the repeat dinner so she could pass her borscht recipe back. Kind of like all Bill and Loretta talked about on the tarmac was grandkids and the poopy diapers.

Yeah, we really need to worry more about the guy who told the lawyer to go to hell.

meanwhile, in other Presidential news that might actually be news: in this impromptu Q&A Trump suggests that we should change from quarterly reporting to just twice-yearly. I think it would be good. Not sure of what-all needs to be done to make it happen, and then make it stick. Thoughts?

While wondering why few want to discuss the pros/cons of moving from quarterly reporting to twice-yearly reporting instead, saw this other video posted and figured it seemed appropriate to also share it here.

(08-19-2018 09:38 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  While wondering why few want to discuss the pros/cons of moving from quarterly reporting to twice-yearly reporting instead, saw this other video posted and figured it seemed appropriate to also share it here.

As for quarterly vs. semi-annually, I have a slight preference for quarterly, but do not consider the matter that important.

As for the video, I think the young man has succinctly said everything I have been trying to say. For those who think I have made too much of The Resistance, his words starting about the 12:20 mark cover that well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

I wonder what would have happened if a Republican had made this joke about Obama.

Actually, I don't wonder - I know the MSM would have made a big deal of it, would have made a racial thing of it, and certainly would not have ignored it as they will do to the this one. You want to kill somebody? You want them dead? Horrible, unless you are talking about Trump.

I'm actually somewhere between agnostic and pro- biannual reporting vs. quarterly reporting.

The drive for 'numbers' on an ongoing rolling 3 mos. basis really tends to cut against the ability to 'long term operate'. But, it is also imperative in any publicly available security for as much transparency as possible.

That being said, perhaps the 6 mos rolling window wouldnt be such a bad thing, as it tends to give more equivalent weight to the two (sometimes competing) goals. But the 'drive' for quarterly numbers is such a short cycle that when one ends the next just fills it up.

I have really come to appreciate the companies that are owned at the hedge fund basis -- the drive for numbers is still there but the hedgies actually understand the long term view very well.

(08-20-2018 09:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

I wonder what would have happened if a Republican had made this joke about Obama.

Actually, I don't wonder - I know the MSM would have made a big deal of it, would have made a racial thing of it, and certainly would not have ignored it as they will do to the this one. You want to kill somebody? You want them dead? Horrible, unless you are talking about Trump.

A quick Google search shows that MSM services have picked up this story.

Heck, WashPo goes into detail about some of the other crazy things he's said in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...f40c86b3e0

And let's not forget what happened to Kathy Griffin when she stepped over the line - CNN even booted her from her NYE hosting gig...