Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[Kory]

I wonder when the city of New Orleans is going to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Jackson Square? Oh right, the Mayor only believes in cherry picked history....

The folks in New Orleans are pining to have the days of Ray Nagin back....as sad as that is.

New Orleans officials can begin the process of removing Confederate monuments involved in the long-running city-led effort to take down monuments that include the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee at Lee Circle, a federal appeals court ruled Monday (March 6).

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/confederate_monuments_appeals_1.html

 

[Kory]

I actually think there is something going on with this wiretapping claim. But I'm gonna hold my cards on this as it's only a gut feeling and have nothing to go on. But I wouldn't be surprised if something actually comes of it. Something smells fishy.

The largest mass surveillance of citizens by the government was exposed while Obama was at the helm of the presidency. Outright violation of the privacy of millions upon millions of Americans with the bulk collection of private data without due process. And he didn't push for reform until he was exposed by Snowden.

So is it out of the realm of possibilities....I don't think so.

 

[Matt]

It really is amazing. Trump is embarrassing himself, his party and the country. His recent baseless claims that he was the victim of wiretapping makes him look like a complete fool after touting "fake news" constantly. Even if it was true, then he looks like a criminal if a judge authorized wiretapping.
Any Trump supporters getting buyers remorse yet?

Answer me this. Who recorded General Flynn's conversation and released the transcripts to the Washington Post ?

 

[Evan]

Answer me this. Who recorded General Flynn's conversation and released the transcripts to the Washington Post ?

Either the NSA/FBI under a standing FISA warrant to intercept communications of the Russian Ambassador because he is a known intelligence operative, or an allied partner of Five Eyes intelligence alliance. There's not yet any proof that Flynn's outbound/inbound calls themselves were intercepted. He was careless/dumb enough to talk with the Russian Ambassador and then lie to the VP about what he discussed even though he should have know all communications that the Russian Ambassador makes are going to be intercepted.

I guess a bigger question is why doesn't Trump simply declassify everything related to the Flynn's calls and those of anyone in his campaign and let the American people judge for themselves? He has the absolute authority to do this. If this is such a non-story and a plot perpetrated by Obama and his former admin members then why not just release what has been slow-leaked and prove it is much ado about nothing? He could declassify any intercepted communications or FISA warrants right now if he wanted to.

When Trump was a candidate it was dangerous for him to make these kinds of spurious accusations. Now, as President, it isn't just dangerous -- it is incredibly foolish, dangerous, AND an absolutely unwinnable narrative. Unlike when he was a candidate, he can declassify information RIGHT NOW if he wants to. He could also appoint a special prosecutor and say he and his campaign did nothing wrong and this is simply Obama and former members of the Obama admin trying to handicap him. He'd immediately force the media AND Democrats to shut-up. He could then refuse to comment on the subject saying it is an ongoing investigation in the hands of the special prosecutor, and what more could anyone want?

Here's the thing: Trump's campaign *could* conceivably be 100% innocent as it pertains to the Russia dealings. It could be nothing more than smoke, mirrors, and DC back-biting. But because of his gargantuan ego and inability to take advice or formulate strategic political plans -- he opened up a can of worms that he can no longer control, and has created a narrative he cannot win with. What is he going to do if it turns out Obama and his former admin officials did absolutely nothing wrong and everything was handled 100% correctly? What is he going to do if his campaign or campaign associates actually did have traitorous or compromising discussions with the Russians? The only way he "wins" is if his campaign was 100% spotless and there really is evidence Obama and his admin created something out of nothing? In 2 out of 3 scenarios Trump loses. One results in a complete derailment of any positive narrative and weakens his credibility even further, two results in his impeachment or a huge Watergate style scandal that politically neuters him and assures a 2nd term will never happen, or three he makes the Obama admin look like they swung and missed, but do you believe they are so stupid as to have left incriminating evidence showing a concerted effort at scandalizing Trump with fake leaks and overblown intelligence reports?

What is Trump's end- game here? It has already been shown he had been very much in the dark at times when it comes to much of what happens in his admin and that happened during his campaign. Are all of his supporters and the entire GOP really willing to roll the dice and hope that somehow Trump has just guessed that a bunch of ridiculous Breitbart and Infowars conspiracy mongering is true? Because that's the gamble Trump is asking all of you to be a part of. And, from the looks of it, outside of Nunes, Burr, and Rohrabacher, the GOP doesn't seem like they are willing to back Trump unless he can concretely prove his allegations.

If Trump had thought this through he'd have coordinated it with Congressional allies, his WH staff, and others. He didn't -- he went off half-cocked again, and I believe the GOP is getting ready to act like they don't know him if he can't start figuring out how to executive his agenda. Gorsuch only makes up for a limited amount of craziness.

 

[Evan]

I actually think there is something going on with this wiretapping claim. But I'm gonna hold my cards on this as it's only a gut feeling and have nothing to go on. But I wouldn't be surprised if something actually comes of it. Something smells fishy.

You mean something that validates Trump's claim or another trap that he walked headlong into without thinking of the consequences?

 

[Arcadia]

You mean something that validates Trump's claim or another trap that he walked headlong into without thinking of the consequences?

I don't know what I think, honestly. Not on this. My gut almost always thinks Trump walks headlong into crap without thinking of the consequences. That just kind of goes without saying. But I want to believe that he wouldn't make a highly charged allegation solely based on a Breitbart article. Please, someone, tell me he didn't do that. I mean this is a serious charge. You can't just go around accusing your predecessor of wiretapping illegally. I want to believe that we didn't elect someone as dangerous as that. So, let me live in this moment of 'surely there is something to this claim' before you go knocking me silly with reality. Give me five minutes. Okay?

 

[KoD]

Exactly Evan, The FBI or Justice Department would have to file a request from a federal judge or FISA court --which the President could release any court order at will-- and after approval you'd have to get involvement from private telecommunications companies to proceed with surveillance. Between all of these entities and interactions the only thing we have to go on is tweets from the President occurring after known conspiracy sources made the claim with no evidence either.

 

[Evan]

The largest mass surveillance of citizens by the government was exposed while Obama was at the helm of the presidency. Outright violation of the privacy of millions upon millions of Americans with the bulk collection of private data without due process. And he didn't push for reform until he was exposed by Snowden.

So is it out of the realm of possibilities....I don't think so.

So, with that apparatus at his evil fingertips, why would Obama and his admin choose to get a FISA warrant, the FBI investigate, etc instead of just having the supposedly corrupted to the core IRS leak Trump's tax returns? You don't think someone with NOC status couldn't have dropped a thumb-drive in the mail full of Trump's returns to NYtimes, WSJ, Politico, WaPo, etc? Because the e-filed version of Trump's tax returns came in the same format they can go out in. In other words, there'd be no way to know who leaked them. Was it an accountant from Trump's own organization? A bank he got a loan from? A partner in a deal that provided financing? The list of potential leakers would be MASSIVE. There'd be zero way to pin it on the IRS.

So why go for a warrant and an investigation not knowing whether or not anything would come from it when back during the actual election you could have exposed hundreds of secrets about Trump? You don't think his tax returns would be chock full of information that Democrats and Hillary could've had a field day with? Everything from how much he paid in taxes to charitable giving, tax credits, how much he actually had in income, crazy deductions, etc?

What is more politically damaging? Putting Trump on the defensive when he is a mere candidate weakened by the p-grabbing scandal among many other things or once he is President and can shutdown an investigation into potential Russian ties? If you are Obama you'd rather Trump become President and then try to take him on with something you aren't sure whether or not is true, or would you leak his tax returns, order Comey not to write that letter, and then let Hillary win?

I just don't understand this argument that this is the tactic someone would have used if they wanted to weaken Trump.

As far as Snowden is concerned -- he didn't expose anything. He didn't truly know what he had until the Russians got ahold of him and told him what he had. The Kremlin controls Snowden like a puppet on a string. Furthermore, the various SIGINT programs you are referencing had their genesis occur under President Clinton and President George W. Bush. Obama simply continued the development of such programs and expanded them. Don't believe me? Go read in-depth about XKeyhole, MUSCULAR, PRISM, or even about Stuxnet.

Snowden is a traitor that should be brought back to the United States and given a fair trial for his crimes. He planned to start his leaks under George W. Bush but waited because he said the thought Obama would be different. So, saying Obama is responsible for mass surveillance of citizens is just fallacious. Of course he was. As has been every single President out there. Including Trump. If they aren't doing it they aren't doing their job.

The vast majority of what Snowden exposed was for foreign SIGINT and has little to no domestic impact. Russia, China, and others certainly want you to believe there was a vast domestic spying scandal. They want to neuter the NSA as much as possible. You think they have any oversight or privacy protection protocols at all compared to the NSA? What Moscow Ed actually exposed and what he claims to have exposed are two totally different things.

Don't take me as someone who is cavalier about the Constitution, privacy rights, or the NSA. There were abuses. There have been issues. But you don't handle it by exposing vital and legitimate programs and in turn give aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

[Evan]

I don't know what I think, honestly. Not on this. My gut almost always thinks Trump walks headlong into crap without thinking of the consequences. That just kind of goes without saying. But I want to believe that he wouldn't make a highly charged allegation solely based on a Breitbart article. Please, someone, tell me he didn't do that. I mean this is a serious charge. You can't just go around accusing your predecessor of wiretapping illegally. I want to believe that we didn't elect someone as dangerous as that. So, let me live in this moment of 'surely there is something to this claim' before you go knocking me silly with reality. Give me five minutes. Okay?

I don't see it as any different than the millions of illegal voters, Rafael Cruz being involved with JFK's assassination or any of the other outlandish theories Trump has spun (Obama birth certificate).

Having watched Trump since his inauguration, what you said is exactly what he does. He read a Breitbart article based off of some highly partisan and twisted talking points that Mark Levin put out (who opposed Trump and is desperate to get his ratings back up as his recent investments in Conservative Review and his TV network were floundering) and started foaming at the mouth.

If this wasn't typical half-cocked Trump then why didn't anyone in his admin have warning or was even remotely prepared to respond? All they could do was no comment the subject because they had no clue what he was even trying to allege.

I think there is something to this allegation. I think there were Trump campaign workers, consultants, strategists, surrogates, or hanger-ons that got popped on SIGINT intercepts due to a FISA Court warrant. And, that warrant was either based off of Five Eyes reports shared with the NSA or others, or the FBI independently developed evidence and got a FISA Warrant, and now our Five Eyes allies are backstopping what we collected with what they found out.

Absolutely nothing prevents one of our allies from eavesdropping on Trump campaign folks in Europe, Russia, the Bahamas, etc and then clueing in the FBI/NSA/CIA or others about suspicious things Trump people were doing.

This could be all smoke. But when you start talking FISA Warrants it would have to be a hell of a lot of smoke, and to not have a corresponding fire would be a long shot, no?

I don't pretend to have it all figured out. But I do have Trump figured out. He doesn't have any special intelligence source he is using. This is just Trump being Trump. Otherwise, why not wait until you have something tangible and damning and then drop it on Obama? At the very least why wouldn't you wait until you have your freaking people in at the DOJ, in the IC, and good relationships with our allies' IC? Why would you drop this knowing that hardly anyone loyal is settled into those key places to back you up?

This isn't Trump playing 4-D chess. It's getting your money maker kicked by a 3 year old playing Uno.

I want to believe he isn't this crazy, too. Trust me I do...

 

[ARCC]

I don't believe he is crazy, he just wants his name in the headline. He knows he really is invincible right now so the more his name is there the more he is remembered when he is gone.

 

[Kory]

Another Wikileaks dump.....

CIA masquerading its malware as belonging to foreign intelligence agencies......hmm interesting.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14173...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

[Evan]

Another Wikileaks dump.....

CIA masquerading its malware as belonging to foreign intelligence agencies......hmm interesting.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14173...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Good. That means they are doing their job. Too bad Clinton didn't really say she wanted to drone Assange. Even worse, they didn't actually drone the guy. He should have been poisoned or assassinated in some way a long time ago. Remember, we have killers, too.

If anyone thinks exposing these programs makes us more safe or exposes civil liberty violations they are smoking way too much weed. Foreign citizens on foreign soil don't have Constitutional privacy rights. Neither do nation-states.

Just watch: same people who said Trump's immigration order had no Constitutional issues "because immigrants don't have rights" will now say all foreigners have privacy rights because a front for Russian intelligence tells them so.

 

[Evan]

In case my post is misconstrued, no I don't really think Assange should be droned. But, I do think he acts for Russian Intel, and disclosure of these programs is not in the best interest of US NATSEC.

The disclosure of being able to bypass encryption in programs like Signal will be a huge win for terrorist organizations as it provides a blueprint for them to avoid having their communications intercepted.

Ever wonder why Assange never provides similar material on cyber warfare or SIGINT programs run by the Russians or the Chinese? Programs that we are much more likely to negative effect Westerners and actually have zero oversight by their respective governments.

Will be very curious to see how the Trump admin responds to this. Pompeo, Mattis, and McMaster are not going to be happy.

 

[Evan]

Without getting into the overall merits of the GOP Healthcare legislation -- or a strict comparison to Obamacare, I have just one key political thought so far: Are the Republicans suicidal? Do they want to get destroyed in the mid-terms?

If this analysis is right, then it simply MUST be that the Republicans are suicidal.

"In general, the impact of the Republican bill would be particularly severe for older individuals, ages 55 to 64. Their costs would increase by $5,269 if the bill went into effect today and by $6,971 in 2020."

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...publican-health-care-plan-premiums-cost-price

"Currently, the ACA prohibits insurers from charging older individuals premiums that are more than three times greater than premiums for younger individuals. Under the Republican bill, insurers could charge premiums for older individuals that are as much as five times greater. Therefore, obviously, premiums for older individuals would go up, those for younger individuals would go down."

Why in God's name would you do this if you ever wanted to win in 2018? You are giving a huge entitlement to the 18-35 millennial cohort that has become LESS likely to vote for you over the past 10 years (in large part due to social issues), and increasing the Healthcare costs of the last of the Boomers that make up a disproportionate share of your voter base, and have become MORE likely to vote for your over the last 10 years.

Not content simply to piss off your largest voting base, the GOP and Trump rolled out Tom Price to make an absurdly idiotic promise that premiums will go down. Did the GOP and Trump learn NOTHING from Obama's "keep your doctor" quip that became a rallying cry against his own Healthcare Bill?



I'm having an out of body experience. This can't be real life. Botched rollout, helps those that aren't going to vote for you, punishes those that have voted for you, and makes an Obama-esque promise about premiums going down.

Why would you do ANY of those things let alone ALL of it all on the SAME day? It's like a brain eating amoeba ate the brains of the Democrats and now is chomping down on Republican gray matter. And Trump is going along with this as the first major piece of legislation that he supports??? He's resting the fate of his entire admin on a bill absolutely certain to enrage his base. Good luck with that...

 

[Evan]

So... every major Conservative group is against the ACA reform bill, all progressive groups are against it, and even Breitbart hates it?

What in God's name is going on? Is the GOP just pushing this to say we tried but Obamacare is too entrenched and this is about the best we can do? If so, why would the WH come out swinging in support of it? Scratch that, President Trump himself called it a "wonderful bill."



What is the end game here? I don't buy this argument of wait until you see phase 2 & 3 of our reform. Why would you roll out this absolute clunker, waste political capital on it, enrage literally every single American alive (except for insurance company CEOs), and then say: "but wait, there's more!"

It's like the Sham-Wow guy and Billy Mays combined are trying to sell you the effluent from your own septic tank as drinking water while insisting you will get used to the taste.

 

[gangstonc]

So... every major Conservative group is against the ACA reform bill, all progressive groups are against it, and even Breitbart hates it?

What in God's name is going on? Is the GOP just pushing this to say we tried but Obamacare is too entrenched and this is about the best we can do? If so, why would the WH come out swinging in support of it? Scratch that, President Trump himself called it a "wonderful bill."



What is the end game here? I don't buy this argument of wait until you see phase 2 & 3 of our reform. Why would you roll out this absolute clunker, waste political capital on it, enrage literally every single American alive (except for insurance company CEOs), and then say: "but wait, there's more!"

It's like the Sham-Wow guy and Billy Mays combined are trying to sell you the effluent from your own septic tank as drinking water while insisting you will get used to the taste.

The end game is the lobbyists get what they wanted, which means the insurance companies got what they wanted, which helps those that are in bed with the insurance industry.

 

[Evan]

In case my post is misconstrued, no I don't really think Assange should be droned. But, I do think he acts for Russian Intel, and disclosure of these programs is not in the best interest of US NATSEC.

The disclosure of being able to bypass encryption in programs like Signal will be a huge win for terrorist organizations as it provides a blueprint for them to avoid having their communications intercepted.

Ever wonder why Assange never provides similar material on cyber warfare or SIGINT programs run by the Russians or the Chinese? Programs that we are much more likely to negative effect Westerners and actually have zero oversight by their respective governments.

Will be very curious to see how the Trump admin responds to this. Pompeo, Mattis, and McMaster are not going to be happy.

After actually reading what Wikileaks posted instead of MSM misunderstanding of Wikileaks press release... Wikileaks doesn't appear to be exposing too much fresh information. Sure, they may dump more up to date material later, but for now a lot of what they dumped is simply hypothetical.

No actual bypassing of encryption in messaging apps like Signal. Just OS/device exploits to allow data to be intercepted before encryption applied. Always has been and will always be an issue. Wikileaks' allegations about encryption are exaggerated to the extreme. Same as it pertains to Smart TV hacking. Requires physical USB access (think early Stuxnet variations) and can't be done OTA based on what Wikileaks has shown so far.

The intended purpose of this data dump certainly seems to be based upon trying to upset a handful of existing CIA or US Gov operations, but primarily intended to provide plausible deniability to Russians for Podesta/DNC hacking, cover for Trump wiretap claims, and cover for Trump surrogates potentially caught up by a NATSEC intercept program.

 

[ARCC]

So... every major Conservative group is against the ACA reform bill, all progressive groups are against it, and even Breitbart hates it?

What in God's name is going on? Is the GOP just pushing this to say we tried but Obamacare is too entrenched and this is about the best we can do? If so, why would the WH come out swinging in support of it? Scratch that, President Trump himself called it a "wonderful bill."



What is the end game here? I don't buy this argument of wait until you see phase 2 & 3 of our reform. Why would you roll out this absolute clunker, waste political capital on it, enrage literally every single American alive (except for insurance company CEOs), and then say: "but wait, there's more!"

It's like the Sham-Wow guy and Billy Mays combined are trying to sell you the effluent from your own septic tank as drinking water while insisting you will get used to the taste.

The end game is single payer. I posted on another forum that the republicans will only replace Obamacare with a copy of Obamacare. When it flops or is hated they will say that they tried and then roll out a single payer option to replace it.

The problem is we see the two parties as separate entities when in reality they are just two sides of the same coin. They each play off each other to get votes with the same absolute objective in mind of more government control.

Single payer is coming, the question is who gets it passed first to get the capital.

 

[Kory]

I yet to read one positive thing about the GOP's healthcare replacement bill. I also never understood the "repeal and replace" mantra by the GOP. Where is the federal government granted the right to meddle in the healthcare of its citizens?

Why don't we take a free market approach? Lift all the governmental regulations and constraints, break up the monopolies of a few insurance providers (which would be done by removing the government intervention in healthcare since most insurance provider monopolies are propped up by lobbyists), and allow a free market to drive down costs of healthcare so that it is affordable? I know Medicare and Medicaid are big in influence costs in the medical field and it seems that skews prices as the government establishes a baseline.

Maybe I'm looking at this all too simply?

 

[David in SW Blount]

I work for the state education system. For my family to have good health insurance coverage with low deductible, I pay $307 per month (and since my wife has a new full time job with her own insurance, it will be dropping to $207 per month to cover me and my two daughters). My employer pays $800, for a total of $1107 per month. So, where do these outrageously high premiums with high deductibles under Obamacare come from? The state education system has a broad cross-section of employees of various ages and various risk levels. Why can't that be mimicked with a big pot of people on the national level who don't have coverage through an employer? Sure, $1107 per month is unaffordable for many families, so give them reasonable subsidies. There has to be some way to fix this; the problem is, everyone wants it all. Low cost, low deductible, pre-existing conditions covered, no mandate for coverage, my kids stay on my insurance until age 26, etc.