Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 3:24 pm

georgeatkins
What I mean is that the Democratic Party uses real and believed issues with specific socio-economic groups to further their own cause, more than fixing any real problems. Did we win the War on Poverty? (in some ways, I think so) How about the War on Drugs? Nope. The War on the Achievement Gap? Nope. The Education Gap? Nope. They all make good pep talks and rallying points, but nothing much comes out of them, in the end.

Ah, so the war on drugs was lost solely because of Democratic governments failings? The war on Poverty wasn't won by trickle down economics in the 80s? Poverty wasn't erased with the deregulation of banks and financial institutions...which was supposed to bring in a reign of prosperity for all?

This is pretty thin soup George. Yes, The issues you note are still festering. That the people affected negatively by them, decide on how to vote in part by considering the policies of the parties and candidates running is how democracy is supposed to work.
It strikes me that the complaint that the Dems have certain groups locked up, even though they haven't delivered on them, should give republicans pause... If they can't attract these groups with republican policies despite the supposed non-delivery by the Democrats - why are their own republican policies so poorly perceived?
Thats not on the minority groups. Thats on the republicans who can't fathom why their alternatives are such non-starters.

g
Well, in some cases, they are manufactured. The idea that police (as a group or entity) have a vendetta against blacks and feel they are entitled to kill them with impunity (a common BLM accusation) is without foundation

One thing about the prevalence of cameras and video evidence in todays society is that there is now so much evidence that the stories told about the jeopardy that blacks are in when they encounter police is well documented.
The evidence that blacks face unequal jepardy in the criminal justice system is also well documented.

g
Sorry, Rick. This seems muddled. Is the system working or not?

I said it was working the way it was designed. Not that it was working well. (Its a crappy design)
And today its working to benefit a small segment of society the most. The financial community, corporation exectuives and the very wealthy.
After the turn of the 19th century and especially after WWII there was a golden period where the American middle classs was built, and where the economy grew and benefitted a broad swathe of the populace. It was also a period with increasing political clout for women and the working class because they had political clout. The vote.
As corporatism took over through the 50s 60s and 70s things tended to change. A progressive taxation system became less progressive, the financial sector threw off regulations despite regularly causing billions, and finally trillions, in losses stopped gapped by taxpayers, (see Lobby groups gained greater and greater control of the regulartory enviroment. For instance despite loosing to the creation of Medicare, the health care industries managed to grow their industry to where it represents a larger section of the US economy than any other western nation by a factor of 2 and sometimes 3 (depending on the nation you compare it to) and yet with no better results for the populace...

george
On the other hand, keep in mind that it is the "job" of one party to oppose the other

thats the problem. Opposition isn't supposed to be intransigence, and obstruction. Its supposed to be offering ideas and polcies that offer an alternative.
However the political system you have provides a determined opposition the ability to actually grind things to a halt. And nothing gets accomplished.
I think we probably agree that things are not going well for the wrokign class, and middle class...

I just happen to think Trump offers nothing for them either.... He's a con. He's ensconcing Wall Street into his cabinet and putting no nothings in charge of cabinet positions. Perry in charge of energy? What does he know or offer regarding nuclear energy? (75% of his job)
You seem to think he's going to shake things up enough that somehow things will change.. I think all he'll do is line his pockets and the pockets of his cronies . Maybe he will deliver on infrastructure. I have some hope there.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Dec 2016, 8:54 am

I seem to recall that it was Nixon who declared the "War on Drugs" and Reagan who upped the resources to it. So it was a Democrat invention how?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 6:58 pm

Russia tried to influence our election. Wow.

Obama tried to influence the Brexit vote. In fact, he did it himself.

Obama tried to influence the Israeli election.

Putin believes Clinton tried to influence the Russian election.

Now, Freeman's best argument is that by releasing the truth the Russians may have influenced enough voters to cost Hillary the election. That is *possible*, but it is not knowable.

What the Wikileaks documents did was reinforce what Clinton herself established: she was someone who could not be trusted. Did it cost her the election? I don't think so. What I do know is that no one can prove that it did.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Oct 2017, 4:55 pm

Hoo-boy! This is getting ugly.

The DNC and Clinton campaign pay for a dossier.

The Obama Administration’s intel agencies believe it.

Democrats try to beat Trump over the head with it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 2b7a71fb8e
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 29 Oct 2017, 8:35 pm

If half of what is being reported is true, we're going to see people behind bars.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Oct 2017, 8:38 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:If half of what is being reported is true, we're going to see people behind bars.

Lol, who?

Manafort? Flynn?

Clinton? Other Democrats?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 30 Oct 2017, 5:34 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
dag hammarsjkold wrote:If half of what is being reported is true, we're going to see people behind bars.

Lol, who?

Manafort? Flynn?

Clinton? Other Democrats?

Well Manafort perhaps.

Paul Manafort to turn himself in as Trump-Russia inquiry heats up (GUARDIAN)

According to the New York Times, Manafort and Rick Gates, who was a junior business partner of Manafort’s, are the first people to face charges in the investigation run by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the Trump campaign’s possible collusion in that effort.

CNN also reported that Manafort would hand himself over on Monday.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Oct 2017, 7:00 am

fate
The DNC and Clinton campaign pay for a dossier
.
The Washington Free Beacon on Friday confirmed it originally retained the political research firm Fusion GPS to scour then-candidate Trump's background for negative information, a common practice known as "opposition research" in politics.
Opposition research was what Trump Jr. said he was doing when he met with Russians who were interested in Trump eliminating the Magnitsky Act...
Was Trump junior wrong to pursue "opposition research"? Was the Washington Free Beacon wrong to pursue opposition research?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Oct 2017, 11:26 am

rickyp wrote:fate
The DNC and Clinton campaign pay for a dossier
.
The Washington Free Beacon on Friday confirmed it originally retained the political research firm Fusion GPS to scour then-candidate Trump's background for negative information, a common practice known as "opposition research" in politics.


True. However, who was it that took over the effort, hired a Brit ex-spy, who then paid money to Russian sources?

Oh. The Clinton Campaign? The DNC?

Yeah, those guys.

Opposition research was what Trump Jr. said he was doing when he met with Russians who were interested in Trump eliminating the Magnitsky Act...
Was Trump junior wrong to pursue "opposition research"? Was the Washington Free Beacon wrong to pursue opposition research?


The question is who broke the law? The answer, in terms of the dossier, is Democrats.

Deal with it.

Oh, and now is Tony Podesta in trouble? https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ ... obe-244314

Podesta’s decision to leave the firm came on the same day that former Donald Trump campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were indicted on multiple charges, including money laundering, operating as federal agents of the Ukrainian government, failing to disclose overseas bank accounts and making false statements to federal authorities. Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty earlier this month for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials, according to court records.

The investigation into Podesta and his firm grew out of investigators’ examination of Manafort’s finances. Manafort organized a PR campaign on behalf of a nonprofit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. Podesta Group was one of several firms that were paid to do work on the PR campaign to promote Ukraine in the U.S.

Podesta Group filed paperwork with the Justice Department in April stating that it had done work for the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine that also benefited the same Ukrainian political party that Manafort once advised. Podesta Group said at the time it believed its client was a European think tank untethered to a political party.

Podesta has long been a larger than life figure on K Street, growing his business from a boutique firm into a massive lobbying and public relations operation. He is well known for his flashy dressing, vast art collection, generous campaign donations across all levels of Democratic politics and, of course, for his brother John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.


:uhoh:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Oct 2017, 11:46 am

DNC partially funding the Steele Dossier, Russia trying to bribe its way in the nuclear industry, and now Tony Podesta are all, uh, red herrings. Papadopoulos worked on the campaign and kept trying to arrange a meeting of Trump with Russian officials. And he is cooperating with Mueller. Manafort is facing over 10 years of jail. He'll talk too.

Those are the real stories.

And the DNC is not going anywhere. That's just not reality. Did they give us Trump? No.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Oct 2017, 1:43 pm

Uranium One is a particularly stupid red herring.
11 different departments need to approve the sale of Uranium One ....Hillary was only at State and there is no evidence she was ever involved in their recommendation.
Uranium One had mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. Its actual production is a smaller portion of uranium produced in the United States, at 11 percent in 2014, according to Oilprice.com.
In 2009, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, bought a 17 percent share of Uranium One. In 2010, Rosatom sought to secure enough shares to give it a 51 percent stake.
On the one hand, Russia doesn’t have a license to export uranium outside the United States, so, as Oilprice.com noted, "it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases."
That said, the possibility that a foreign entity would take a majority stake in the uranium operation meant that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, had to approve the deal. So did the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Utah’s nuclear regulator.
The membership of CFIUS includes the State Department, meaning that the Secretary of State would have had a voice. The panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury (who chairs the committee), Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
CFIUS did approve the proposal, and in 2013, Russia assumed 100 percent ownership of Uranium One and renamed the company Uranium One Holding.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... and-urani/

.Why the sale of a played out mine as part of a package was ever important was never explained. Back when this was first a supposed issue.
Its all zombie scandals .... like repeating Ben Ghazi with nothing new to add to 13 investigations...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Oct 2017, 3:59 pm

freeman3 wrote:DNC partially funding the Steele Dossier, Russia trying to bribe its way in the nuclear industry, and now Tony Podesta are all, uh, red herrings. Papadopoulos worked on the campaign and kept trying to arrange a meeting of Trump with Russian officials. And he is cooperating with Mueller. Manafort is facing over 10 years of jail. He'll talk too.

Those are the real stories.

And the DNC is not going anywhere. That's just not reality. Did they give us Trump? No.


You’re killin’ it! Papadopoulos . . . “Worked on the campaign.”

How much did he make? What was his PRECISE role?

I hope they all tell everything they know.

It won’t help you—or the Democrats who will be going to jail.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Oct 2017, 6:17 pm

I think his exact title was Russia Coordinator...

Trump said he was an "energy consultant" and an "excellent guy".

There is a photo of him at a table with Trump and Sessions from March, 2016.

Democrats going to jail? For what?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost ... cb085b/amp
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Oct 2017, 6:33 pm

freeman3 wrote:I think his exact title was Russia Coordinator...

Trump said he was an "energy consultant" and an "excellent guy".

There is a photo of him at a table with Trump and Sessions from March, 2016.

Democrats going to jail? For what?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost ... cb085b/amp


Must be something in your pipe, sir.

From your article:

While Papadopoulos was a low-level official, he was certainly a part of the campaign. He attended a meeting with Trump and Jeff Sessions, who later became attorney general, in March 2016. There’s even a photo of them at a table together, with Papadopoulos sitting four places to Trump’s right and two places to Sessions’ left.


He was a wannabe. He was supposed to help re Greece and that area. Instead, he started tilting at Russian windmills. There is no evidence he ever convinced anyone to do anything, let alone make contact with the Russians.

If he’s going to “flip,” it’s probably an acrobatic move. He knows nothing.

Good luck!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Oct 2017, 7:24 pm

Instead of reading conservative spin..you might want to want to look at the indictment:

(1) Papadopoulus had a meeting with a "professor" who reportedly had substantial contacts with Russian officials on April 26, 2016. He lied to the FBI about the meeting;
(2) He was told that Russia had several thousand emails on Clinton well before the hacks of the DNC or Podesta emails was known;
(3) He sent an email about to high-ranking campaign officials about Russian leadership wanting to meet with Trump and Manafort in response cautioned that Trump should not make the trip, but some low ranking official should make these contacts;
(4) A month later there was meeting between Donald, Jr. and the Russian attorney.

So to recap:

(1) Another indication that the Trump campaign was absolutely willing to collude with the Russians and had no qualms about doing so;
(2) Mueller has enormous leverage over Manafort to get him to tell what he know;
(3) We already have Flynn making these inexpicable contacts with the Russian ambassador to allay concerns about sanctions and lying about it;
(4) Kushner's meeting with a sanctioned Russian bank
(5) Kushner attempting to set up a separate communications link with Russia that would be secure from US intelligence;
(6) Numerous contacts with the Russian ambassador by Trump campaign officials who then had a tendency to lie about it;
(7) Extreme reaction to Russia investigation by Trump including firing Comey.

So we have the inferential chain:

(1) Trump campaign willing to collude with the Russians to win election
(2) The Russians had emails to trade as part of collusion;
(3)
(4) The extreme willingness to make sure Russia did not get mad over sanctions is circumstantial evidence of a payback
(5)Trump's attempts to shut down investigation is consciousness of guilt and circumstantial evidence of guilt.

So you have evidence before the crime and after the crime that indicate a crime did occur. Now we just need evidence of the actual crime (number three)

And that's where flipping Manafort comes in...