Doomed culture warrior(s)... 

 kcar wrote:
 

 kurtster wrote:
 

Wow, are you stealing borrowing from Rush Limbaugh again? You're complaining about the death of US culture because...3.2% of our population is made up of illegal immigrants as of 2017. 

"PC has killed off all possibilities of even having discussions anymore because the meanings of all the relevant words are either being changed or demonized."

Sorry, no. 

"We are no longer allowed to use the pronouns of he and she."

Oh, Kurt. WTAF. 


"We now have more than two sexes."

I cordially invite you to take a walk and consider how hellish life must have been back in the "good old days" for LGBTQ people who didn't fit into accepted social norms and roles. You told us how you caused waves in high school when you moved back East because of your long hair and jeans. Those were part of your personal identity. Imagine if you had to hide your personal identity because people who did come out were attacked, raped, fired or kept out of jobs, loans and mortgages, etc. etc. That kind of hatred still exists. 

There have likely been "more than two sexes" for a very long time—probably for most of recorded history. Social change can be disorienting and disturbing but personally I think it's a good thing when the reach and degree of social acceptance cover all types of people apart from violent and/predatory criminals. Try to find happiness in the fact that fewer decent people have to live in the shadows. 

George Bernard Shaw put it quite well: "Some people think they're being virtuous when they're only being uncomfortable." Relax, buddy. Get to know the people in the world around you. 

 kurtster wrote:
 

Because other RPs and I had to do that for YOU over and over and over when we'd dispute your assertions with evidence...and then you'd forget our posts while repeating yourself weeks or months later. 

You're far more informed and emotionally involved about illegal immigration than I am. It should be easy to back up your claims.  

 kurtster wrote:
 

Please: describe for us the proper alternative. BTW the FBI was investigating Russian interference in our 2016 election before Trump/Russia interaction became an issue. 

 kurtster wrote:




No one paid much mind to the Horowitz report because it pretty much covered familiar ground and faulted Comey for not following FBI/DOJ procedures. We all knew that about Comey anyway. Comey wrote memos to himself about the Flynn investigation and Comey's interaction with Trump about that investigation.

What That Comey Email Report Really Says

For all that Horowitz spent two years on this investigation, there aren’t a lot of new facts—at least not major ones—in this document. The reason is simple: Comey has never been anything but straightforward concerning why he wrote the seven memos in question, what he did with them, whom he shared them with and what his motives were in doing so. On all significant factual questions, the 62-page report merely fleshes out a story that has been known to the public for the better part of two years.


According to the Lawfare opinion piece I quote above, the whole Horowitz report largely cooks down to—what's that phrase?—a nothingburger. Well, maybe not a nothingburger because it's pretty shocking that Horowitz's tirade against Comey largely boils down to one issue: that Comey revealed in a memo given to the NYT that Trump had tried to persuade Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation. Personally, I'd say that Comey had a moral duty to get the information to the public.


More from the piece:


Most of all, however, he’s (Horowitz) upset by Comey’s “unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation.”


...

But most of all, Horowitz seems upset because Comey, through Richman (Dan Richman, one of Comey's lawyers and his friend), disclosed the substance of the Flynn memorandum to Schmidt (NYT reporter Michael Schmidt). The fact that the president suggested the FBI director should “let … go” the investigation into Flynn is, Horowitz argues, law enforcement sensitive—though not classified—material. The move was thus the “unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome” (the appointment of a special counsel).

...

But Horowitz has a big factual problem on this point. Comey, in fact, did not disclose anything about the Flynn investigation in that memo that was not already public. The fact of the Flynn investigation had been publicly disclosed the month before, in congressional testimony by Sally Yates, as Horowitz acknowledges in some footnotes.

...

What Comey’s memo discloses is not that there was a Flynn investigation. That was already public. It was not anything about the Flynn investigation’s contents or activities or subject matter. It was only that the president of the United States tried to stop the investigation.


Summary:

And there it is: the inspector general of the United States Department of Justice taking the position that a witness to gross misconduct by the president of the United States has a duty to keep his mouth shut about what he saw. Remember, after all, that Comey was a witness here as well as the former FBI director. That’s an extraordinary position for a law enforcement organization to take. If that is what FBI policy and an employment agreement required of Comey under the extraordinary circumstances he faced, so be it. I’m glad both were given their due weight.
 

 kcar wrote:

 
The DOJ IG is finally releasing his report(s).  The full report was delayed because Christopher Steele relented and did finally cooperate with the IG providing new evidence and insights that required even more investigation.

Comey is the subject of his first report.  Its been out for a couple of days now (since Wednesday) and no one here has thought it important enough to even mention.  Probably because it is about things that no one wants to hear about or their news sources won't cover it..  His behaviour as FBI Director was so egregious that he got singled out for his own separate report.  Yet he will evidently walk as will everyone else that was in the Obama administration who participated.  

So the Great Pumpkin has finally shown up.  Eh ?

Edit:  a factoid to consider ... all, 100% of official counter intelligence surveillance operations are under the direct supervision of POTUS.  Is not all of which we speak centered around an official FBI counter intelligence surveillance operation of Donald Trump code name Crossfire Hurricane ?  Who would be the POTUS in charge ?  Are you OK with this ?

Let us consider the following ...  We all know that Bernie is a socialist, but what if he is really a commie in disguise ?  It looks like he is going win the nomination.  Say someone plants prints a crazy story in the WSJ about Bernie and Mao and how he met him once and had him autograph his personal copy of the little Red Book.  Hmmm.  Printed story, needs to be investigated.  POTUS launches a counterintelligence operation against Bernie based upon this 'credible' report.  And away we go ...  Would be no different than what happened to Trump.
 
Say what you want but we have defacto open borders.  With an average of 3,000 people a day (and that's only those we capture and know of) showing up and crossing the border at will it is hard to say in my mind at least that we have everything under control at the border.  Plus with all of the Concentration Camps I hear about all along the border where babies are being killed by the angry guards and the only available drinking water is from toilets, how can anyone say that everything is A-OK at our Southern Border ?  At least that is what the Squad members are saying ...  Sanctuary Cities that openly defy immigration laws and enforcement of those laws are part of the open border problem.  If one supports Sanctuary Cities then one also supports open borders.  They are part and parcel of the same thing.  About the only thing that our border patrol does is greet the arrivals and give them a number and let them proceed to where ever it is that they are headed.  Catch and release ... Obama's solution to the problem.
 
Yeah, I'll find something else to keep me busy.  That you missed the arrival of the Great Pumpkin, why should I go digging for other things that you missed because of where you get your news from ?  

 
It is pretty simple really.  We have been doing nothing but kicking cans down the road for so long that there is no point in trying to return to normal anymore.  Few are left who even remember what the old normal was, let alone care.  Saying that it would be nice to go back to a time when it was not necessary to lock your front doors or have a lemonade stand in your front yard to raise money for charities are now considered racist, white supremacist or even worse white nationalists (whatever that is).  PC has killed off all possibilities of even having discussions anymore because the meanings of all the relevant words are either being changed or demonized.  We are no longer allowed to use the pronouns of he and she.  There are now places where you can be fined and even jailed for using those terms.  We now have more than two sexes.  Even thoughts are now being criminalized. Where does this end ?  Those who say y'all are crazy for thinking like this are themselves being called crazy, by the crazy.  

The Oxford Dictionary is now a white racist implement of social division and hate.

Trump was the last chance to reverse this crazy.  When he is gone in a year and a half, we return to crazy as normal and watch crazy take over and run the world for the next 10 years as we wait for the end of the world from climate change.  Barring some unforeseen circumstances, Elizabeth Warren will be our next POTUS.  AOC will be her Veep even though she is too young.  The whole Constitution will be declared unconstitutional because it discriminates based upon age ...

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
I always thought it was kind of stupid when Reagan made a big deal of revealing grainy pictures of the Soviets helping build an airfield in Grenada to justify his invasion. I mean the Soviets knew what they were doing and weren't trying to hide it.  Could have just sent someone over to the fence-line with a camera. This is a little different because the issue is more about revealing the US intelligence capability, but I still don't think it is a big deal. First the image certainly doesn't reflect the actual resolution, although it shows that the resolution is at least that good. A long time ago I heard that the satellites had about 10 cm resolution and I'm sure every other country already has a pretty good idea of what it really is. Intelligence agencies take the "need to know" concept to the extreme - it is easier for them to keep things secret and helps them compete against other agencies, or heaven forbid, against scientists who could really use the technology for the public good - "Sorry we're already doing that but it's classified." 

So in this particular case I don't see any obvious harm, but obviously I can't know what the real concerns might be. Probably the biggest problem is having a president who doesn't work with the community to understand the issues and loses their trust. He won't get very candid assessments if he is such a loose cannon - as well he shouldn't. 

 BlueHeronDruid wrote:
 

I caught him one night in my yard, hiding behind the juniper bushes, waiting to take my guns.

 Steely_D wrote: 

He has the best, biggest brain.

What's the problem with Trump having tweeted that single image from Iran? How much it reveals.
Let's start with the image

And now , courtesy of Cees Bassa@cgbassa

This is science, and it's a beautiful thing to see. <-this is the original twitter thread unrolled into a single web page.

And then, there's more in his Twitter thread, with more thoughtful analysis of what this means in terms of what it tells our adversaries about our spy satellites.

 kurtster wrote: 
I remember this dude Obama. He was evil incarnate.

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 

LOL!   Yes and no.  It was even a little grotesque and over the top for Donald Trump.  

 westslope wrote: 
It sounded just like him, tho.

donalbtrump?

Good.  I thought it was an impersonation.  

 kcar wrote:

Was not Obama known as the "Deportation President"?   Deportations hit highs during Obama's presidency.

The problem for  many great white Americans is that Obama failed to ridicule and demonize immigrants and refugees from Latin America.  

From the WaPo article that BHD pointed us to: 

This more recent offer of pardons for breaking the law to build the wall probably would not constitute obstruction of justice, because it is not connected to any official proceeding. But offering a pardon for such illegal acts could easily violate the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201. That law makes it a crime to give, offer, or promise “anything of value” to a federal public official to influence the official in the performance of an official act or induce the official to violate his or her lawful duty.

Those who work in the Trump administration are public officials under this statute. “Anything of value” is construed very broadly and goes far beyond briefcases full of cash. It includes intangibles with subjective value to the official that could influence the official’s behavior — a “get out of jail free” card in the form of a guaranteed pardon, for example. The charge would be that Trump offered a pardon to public officials to influence the performance of official acts connected to building the wall or to induce the officials to violate their duties by breaking the law.

If there were evidence Trump made such a proposal, legally it wouldn’t matter whether the official actually ended up breaking the law or receiving a pardon. It wouldn’t even matter whether the official agreed to the proposal. The crime of bribery may be established simply upon proof of a corrupt offer.

Whether bribery could actually be proved would depend on the evidence of the president’s intent. If Trump truly was not serious, he would lack the corrupt intent to influence that is necessary to prove a quid pro quo and establish bribery. Such a joke might be foolish or reckless, but not criminal. As in most such cases, the line between innocent behavior and criminality comes down to proof of state of mind, which could include probing whether an alleged “joke” was really a directive via a nod and a wink.