I think it takes a lot of desperation to talk about the FBI as a tool used by the republicans. Also implicating that republicans are now just a tool for Putin and other foreign powers is just silly. If you are talking about destroying fundamental pillars of democracy... Don't do it yourself for a start. The lack of realism is painful on both sides.
Paul Waldman's piece doesn't claim that the FBI is "a tool used by the republicans" or that "republicans are now just a tool for Putin and other foreign powers."
Waldman does claim that the GOP is willing to damage our institutions of fair, impartial and independent courts and law enforcement agencies. "And now, Republicans are not even pretending that those institutions should be impartial and transcend partisanship. They’re saying, if we can use them to destroy our opponents, we will. Something is seriously breaking down."
Here is the takeaway from his op-ed:
"You may not like what Democrats stand for, but they aren’t engaging in widespread official vote suppression, chanting that should their candidate win her opponent should be tossed in jail, promising to prevent any Republican president from filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, suggesting that they’ll try to impeach their opponent as soon as he takes office, cheering when a hostile foreign power hacks into American electronic systems, and trying to use the FBI to win the election."
Let's move on to your comments about the GOP, the FBI and Russia.
The piece does refer to reports in the Wall Street Journal (here and here) and the Daily Beast (here ) that there are FBI agents who feel so strongly that HRC should be charged with crimes that they were leaking information to the press about the Bureau's investigations. Rudy Giuliani is quoted in the Daily Beast piece claiming that "there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity". He claims he knows this based on information from former and active FBI agents. The Washington Post and the New York Times have reported that Comey released his vague letter of last Friday in order to counter the flow of leaked information from FBI agents who are trying to undermine Clinton's candidacy.
The WSJ articles and Waldman contend that the FBI agents were basing their investigation on the book "Clinton Cash"—written by the head of a foundation that Steve Bannon (the CEO of Trump's campaign) founded and still chairs. The Department of Justice reviewed evidence presented to them by the FBI about the possible criminal activity by HRC and the Clinton Foundation and found it "worthless hearsay" (the first WSJ link).
As for the GOP and Russia, Waldman does not claim that Republicans are a tool of Putin. This is what he says:
"Republicans continue to cheer the fact that the electronic systems of American political groups were illegally hacked, and then private communications were selectively released in order to do damage to one side in this election. The Republican nominee has explicitly asked a hostile foreign power to hack into his opponent’s electronic systems."
I think it takes a lot of desperation to talk about the FBI as a tool used by the republicans. Also implicating that republicans are now just a tool for Putin and other foreign powers is just silly. If you are talking about destroying fundamental pillars of democracy... Don't do it yourself for a start. The lack of realism is painful on both sides.
Republicans, led by Donald Trump but by no means limited to him, are engaging in kind of termite-level assault on American democracy, one that looks on the surface as though it’s just aimed at Hillary Clinton, but in fact is undermining our entire system.
...
But as he has in so many ways, Donald Trump takes every ugly impulse Republicans have and turns it up to 11, and just about the entire party follows him down. So now they are making it very clear that from literally the day Hillary Clinton is inaugurated, they will wage total war on her. There will be no rule or norm or standard of decency they won’t flout if it gets them a step closer to destroying her, no matter what the collateral damage.
It’s important to understand that strong institutions are what separate strong democracies from weak ones. In a strong democracy, one party can’t come into power and just lock up its opponents. It can’t turn the country’s law enforcement agencies into a partisan tool to destroy the other party. It can’t say that the courts will function only at its pleasure. We have the world’s most stable system not just because there aren’t tanks in the streets on election day, but because we have institutions that are strong enough to restrain the venality of individual men and women. And now, Republicans are not even pretending that those institutions should be impartial and transcend partisanship. They’re saying, if we can use them to destroy our opponents, we will. Something is seriously breaking down.
And please, spare me any explanations for this phenomenon that rely on how “divided” Americans are. Are we divided? Sure. But there’s only one party that is so vigorously undermining core democratic institutions in this way. You may not like what Democrats stand for, but they aren’t engaging in widespread official vote suppression, chanting that should their candidate win her opponent should be tossed in jail, promising to prevent any Republican president from filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, suggesting that they’ll try to impeach their opponent as soon as he takes office, cheering when a hostile foreign power hacks into American electronic systems, and trying to use the FBI to win the election.
Only one party is doing all of that. And we should all be very worried about what Republicans will do after November 8, whether they win or lose.
Let's put this another way: let's find someone you wouldn't trust to lead a scout troop and give that person nuclear weapons.
Tangent: the wife and I were discussing which of the candidates we'd hire as a babysitter.
Trump? No f#cking way. Nope nope nope nope.
Jill Stein? Well, she is technically a doctor, and probably wouldn't be able to do much damage while we were gone. She might insist that we turn off the wifi while she was there but it's not like she can un-vaccinate the kids.
Johnson? Sure, bet he tells great bedtime stories but NO EDIBLES ALLOWED.
Clinton? Probably learned something as a mom, but Bill is NOT allowed to come over.
I do not think that it can be broken down that simply as our friend does nor should it. I know that Trump is an asswipe on many levels, but we are electing a POTUS, not a boy / girl scout troop leader.
Let's put this another way: let's find someone you wouldn't trust to lead a scout troop and give that person nuclear weapons.
Tangent: the wife and I were discussing which of the candidates we'd hire as a babysitter.
Trump? No f#cking way. Nope nope nope nope.
Jill Stein? Well, she is technically a doctor, and probably wouldn't be able to do much damage while we were gone. She might insist that we turn off the wifi while she was there but it's not like she can un-vaccinate the kids.
Johnson? Sure, bet he tells great bedtime stories but NO EDIBLES ALLOWED.
Clinton? Probably learned something as a mom, but Bill is NOT allowed to come over.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 2, 2016 - 11:28am
black321 wrote:
Any insight? I'm not smart enough to know exactly why it matters if a judge is conservative or liberal, other than the obvious political issues like abortion and gun control, which I feel are low on the totem pole of relevance.
I will come back to this, but let me say quickly that the way most people think of it is how your post frames it — whether a judge is conservative or liberal in terms of political orientation/persuasion. That is the wrong approach. That consideration should be irrelevant. A judicial philosophy should not be grounded in a judge's political beliefs or leanings; certainly judicial determinations should not be.
No matter how horrible you may think Trump is, Clinton is several orders of magnitude worse. That is our choice.
I do appreciate the responses, but ...
To those who chose to respond to this, let it be known that I only wrote it as a rebuttal to this post earlier in the Clinton thread.
Red_Dragon wrote:
No matter how horrible you may think Clinton is, Trump is several orders of magnitude worse. That is our choice.
I do not think that it can be broken down that simply as our friend does nor should it. I know that Trump is an asswipe on many levels, but we are electing a POTUS, not a boy / girl scout troop leader.
I leave with these rhetorical questions ... what does Trump have to gain by becoming POTUS ? A. Nothing, he already has everything.
What does Hillary have to gain by being elected POTUS ? A. Everything. Remember how she said they were flat broke when they left the White House ?
My vote is for the person who has the least to gain by winning. That person has a better chance of doing the right thing, for all of us.
I agree that we need to break out of the 2-party death waltz.
As for Supreme Court Justices: The great majority of the folk who sound off on this have little or no idea what they are talking about in terms of the work of the Justices, the Constitution, and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. This issue has been demagogued to death, not just during this election cycle but for many years now. It pisses me off that the selection of Supreme Court Justices has become so politicized, and that bodes ill for our form of government as set forth in the Constitution and envisioned by the Founders. Most jurisprudential giants of the Supreme Court would have no chance of surviving the nomination process and getting on the Court today. I think that says it all. The ridiculous GOP Senate position over Garland's nomination — that they have no obligation to even consider his nomination and that they want the public to have a chance to weigh in on the selection of Scalia's successor via the November election — is a political maneuver that runs contrary to the Constitution's attempt to immunize the Justices from the political winds by giving them life tenure. *rant over*
Any insight? I'm not smart enough to know exactly why it matters if a judge is conservative or liberal, other than the obvious political issues like abortion and gun control, which I feel are low on the totem pole of relevance.
The court issue is a legitimate argument to go republican. But does it justify the means? Are most folks smart enough to know how good or bad each candidate is? They should be, if they spent as much time analyzing the facts as they do analyzing Sunday football games. That's a problem with our culture. I personally don't think Clinton is as kind hearted as you appear to paint her, but also not much worse than your average politician. But this isn't just about the facts. Emotions are involved as well. To a die hard republican, how do they vote democratic, let alone for someone like Clinton? And many people just don't like her. How many democrats would have been able to swallow if the choice was GW against a democratic version of Trump? (Actually, at this point, GW doesn't look all that bad). That's a problem of our reliance on the two parties. I'm not part of a party, and I urged my kids not to become dem/repub. Perhaps that's the best start to us moving away from the two parties.
A quick glance at FB commentary (a separate level of hell in itself) shows that folks can't really think of this as anything more complex than a high school football "we're great and you suck" sort of thing. The nuances are completely lost on a huge number of people. (Insert my usual "bottom half of the bell curve votes" rant here.)
For instance, on a post about Lena Dunham wearing a costume mocking Trump, here're some of the responses:
Kevin QuinnYou look much better with the costume on you hag.
Al VegaHopefully she will be moving to Canada after next Tuesday!
And, most likely, these folks will steer the direction of a complex and powerful nation with their vote. So, mobilizing folks into a third party - that's based on thoughtfulness about international relations, complex financial decisions, a long term educational and infrastructure plan, and - despite all that - a winning smile...I can't help but be despondent.
But, we're watching the GOP destroy itself regardless. I posted years ago "Welcome to the end of the GOP. Pull up a chair." I thought it was about hyper religious insistence, or the ludicrous tax pledge, but it's Trump. Will the GOP splinter off into a reasonable faction - behaving like the party used to be? I suspect that's up to them, but their success, like it or not, will be decided by how the media decides to cover them. And that will be decided by Rupert Murdoch.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 2, 2016 - 10:44am
black321 wrote:
The court issue is a legitimate argument to go republican. But does it justify the means? Are most folks smart enough to know how good or bad each candidate is? They should be, if they spent as much time analyzing the facts as they do analyzing Sunday football games. That's a problem with our culture. I personally don't think Clinton is as kind hearted as you appear to paint her, but also not much worse than your average politician. But this isn't just about the facts. Emotions are involved as well. To a die hard republican, how do they vote democratic, let alone for someone like Clinton? And many people just don't like her. How many democrats would have been able to swallow if the choice was GW against a democratic version of Trump? (Actually, at this point, GW doesn't look all that bad). That's a problem of our reliance on the two parties. I'm not part of a party, and I urged my kids not to become dem/repub. Perhaps that's the best start to us moving away from the two parties.
I agree that we need to break out of the 2-party death waltz.
As for Supreme Court Justices: The great majority of the folk who sound off on this have little or no idea what they are talking about in terms of the work of the Justices, the Constitution, and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. This issue has been demagogued to death, not just during this election cycle but for many years now. It pisses me off that the selection of Supreme Court Justices has become so politicized, and that bodes ill for our form of government as set forth in the Constitution and envisioned by the Founders. Most jurisprudential giants of the Supreme Court would have no chance of surviving the nomination process and getting on the Court today. I think that says it all. The ridiculous GOP Senate position over Garland's nomination — that they have no obligation to even consider his nomination and that they want the public to have a chance to weigh in on the selection of Scalia's successor via the November election — is a political maneuver that runs contrary to the Constitution's attempt to immunize the Justices from the political winds by giving them life tenure. *rant over*
I think that convincing people of that is the only hope of the GOP if they want someone in office to pick Supreme Court justices. They can't convince people that Trump is good, so they have to say that Hillary's bad - and not just bad and not Michael Jackson Bad but "'biggest liar ever" BAD. And that's clearly been the strategy.
They aren't the same, by any means. Although a politician and presumably well paid, her decades of experience are in the arena of "helping." She makes money from it, but it's a life that's by definition about trying to positively influence others. Successful or not - it's a completely different mindset than selling gold-plated hotel rooms or steaks. They are not the same and saying it just means that folks have listened to, and been influenced by, the talking points of the competition. Objectively, they are not the same.
The court issue is a legitimate argument to go republican. But does it justify the means? Are most folks smart enough to know how good or bad each candidate is? They should be, if they spent as much time analyzing the facts as they do analyzing Sunday football games. That's a problem with our culture. I personally don't think Clinton is as kind hearted as you appear to paint her, but also not much worse than your average politician. But this isn't just about the facts. Emotions are involved as well. To a die hard republican, how do they vote democratic, let alone for someone like Clinton? And many people just don't like her. How many democrats would have been able to swallow if the choice was GW against a democratic version of Trump? (Actually, at this point, GW doesn't look all that bad). That's a problem of our reliance on the two parties. I'm not part of a party, and I urged my kids not to become dem/repub. Perhaps that's the best start to us moving away from the two parties.
In terms of the magnitude or impact of their mistakes, I would agree...but only because of her role as first lady, senator, secretary of state. I wouldn't want to take the risk of seeing the "magnitude" of Trump's mistakes as a public figure. I think they are two sides of the same coin, narcissistic, ego maniacs...but Clinton has more control of her personality, and willing at the very least to pretend to do the right thing, or play the game.
I think that convincing people of that is the only hope of the GOP if they want someone in office to pick Supreme Court justices. They can't convince people that Trump is good, so they have to say that Hillary's bad - and not just bad and not Michael Jackson Bad but "'biggest liar ever" BAD. And that's clearly been the strategy.
They aren't the same, by any means. Although a politician and presumably well paid, her decades of experience are in the arena of "helping." She makes money from it, but it's a life that's by definition about trying to positively influence others. Successful or not - it's a completely different mindset than selling gold-plated hotel rooms or steaks. They are not the same and saying it just means that folks have listened to, and been influenced by, the talking points of the competition. Objectively, they are not the same.
In terms of the magnitude or impact of their mistakes, I would agree...but only because of her role as first lady, senator, secretary of state. I wouldn't want to take the risk of seeing the "magnitude" of Trump's mistakes as a public figure. I think they are two sides of the same coin, narcissistic, ego maniacs...but Clinton has more control of her personality, and willing at the very least to pretend to do the right thing, or play the game.
No matter how horrible you may think Trump is, Clinton is several orders of magnitude worse. That is our choice.
In terms of the magnitude or impact of their mistakes, I would agree...but only because of her role as first lady, senator, secretary of state. I wouldn't want to take the risk of seeing the "magnitude" of Trump's mistakes as a public figure. I think they are two sides of the same coin, narcissistic, ego maniacs...but Clinton has more control of her personality, and willing at the very least to pretend to do the right thing, or play the game.
No, that's false. There's a frothiness about lying and so forth that doesn't need rehashing here, but it's not true that she's worse than he. It's just not and saying it doesn't make it true. That seems to be the method: repeat lies enough until people just capitulate. (Obama's a Muslim...30% of the USA still believes that crap.)
The thing that could sway voters to him is that they want to put someone in the highest office in the land, the most powerful seat in the world - who's never held public office, cheated on his wives, been a financial failure, admitted to ripping off his business associates, promoted the ludicrous birther movement, began his campaign with racist inflammatory comments, made boldface lies about his opinion regarding going to war, incited violence at his rallies.
Hillary has clearly done bad things, too - but within the context of more than two decades of experience in public office including the White House. If you want to think they're both bad, that's fine - but at least she's bad while knowing the playing field. Trump is going to be learning the ropes for a very long time, and doesn't seem to be the kinda guy that makes good snap decisions in the interim.
No, that's false. There's a frothiness about lying and so forth that doesn't need rehashing here, but it's not true that she's worse than he. It's just not and saying it doesn't make it true. That seems to be the method: repeat lies enough until people just capitulate. (Obama's a Muslim...30% of the USA still believes that crap.)
The thing that could sway voters to him is that they want to put someone in the highest office in the land, the most powerful seat in the world - who's never held public office, cheated on his wives, been a financial failure, admitted to ripping off his business associates, promoted the ludicrous birther movement, began his campaign with racist inflammatory comments, made boldface lies about his opinion regarding going to war, incited violence at his rallies.
Hillary has clearly done bad things, too - but within the context of more than two decades of experience in public office including the White House. If you want to think they're both bad, that's fine - but at least she's bad while knowing the playing field. Trump is going to be learning the ropes for a very long time, and doesn't seem to be the kinda guy that makes good snap decisions in the interim.
Why. Is. This. Even. An. Issue. Hofuk King Stupid have we become?
