TakeYouToTasker

He had me at "80's porn stache"

I'm not entirely sure it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.

I'm conflicted here... DC Tom doesn't support Brennan...

If you don't believe the deep state argument to be compelling, then you haven't read it. Greg's (DR) research, posted here and fully sourced with primary documents, has led to one of the most compelling arguments I've ever read anywhere. If you've read "some of the deep state stuff", then you haven't read Greg's fully sourced timeline, and really need to . If you do that, and dismiss it, fine. But you've dismissed it before reading it. Don't do that.

He didn't get rid of Brennan. Brennan is a former CIA director who still enjoyed his security clearance, post federal employment, who now works as a talking head for CNN. Brennan is also a criminal, will get his comeuppance, and had no business holding a clearance, and using it for what he was (the persistence of a palace coup against a duly elected President)[/I]. Full stop. Further, had he fired Brennan (which he didn't because Brennan never worked for him), he would have been fully justified within the scope of his Constitutionally prescribed powers. Members of the Executive branch serve at the pleasure of the President. Again, full stop, Congress has no Constitutional authority in the matter. None. Zip. Zilch. If you disagree, please source the provision in the Constitution which grants Congress oversight over either or both the retention of the head of the CIA and who is permitted to keep security clearances.

She's a terrible person, so I can't see why he wouldn't.

The argument isn't only for those participating in the argument, it's also for the reader who may not have made up their mind. I would also offer that not everyone on the left is lost. I would argue there is a sizable portion of that intellectual community who simply are what they were raised to be, and have not been exposed to counter arguments in a medium which forces them to think, and gives them a chance to respond. I live in an area that is amongst the most progressive in the country, and I have these sorts of discussions with people holding views opposing mine all the time, and have found that given an opportunity for reflection over a long period of time, people can, and do, change their minds. In fact the entire #walkaway movement was founded on exactly that idea.

It's not that it's politically correct, it's that it's a relevant factual accounting that leaves no room for rejection based on perceived bigotry. If you want to hold someone's feet to the fire, you have to pin them down. You can't do that when you introduce things like sexual orientation, race, sex, etc. Arguing with leftists is like nailing Jello to the wall. It's easiest to do when you first freeze the Jello.

Excellent. I appreciate you doing the right thing.

People shouldn't be critical of things they disagree with politically unless they want to be attacked for their sexuality? Are you sure you don't want to think that through? Edit: Thank you.

Criticism of individuals is fine, as it pertains to things that are relevant. The sexuality of individuals isn't !@#$ing relevant, and the fact that you're using sexual orientation as a pejorative is ugly and wrong. It's group think, and identity politics, and bigotry (though I'll allow that it may not be intentional). It's reasonable, and desirable, in my opinion, to push back against lies and gaslighting by prominent members of the mainstream media. It is not in any way appropriate to haul sexual orientation into it.

Does it? Homosexuals are a monolith? Or is that just you making unfounded generalizations about a group you've decided to "other"? Why not say the same about blacks, or Hispanics, or women? Which still doesn't explain why you think it's appropriate to use sexual orientation as a pejorative.

Right... I haven't been paying attention... Explain, in your own words, why someone's sexuality is relevant. This should be good.

bull ****. It's not relevant to anything. Knock it off.

I'll ask you again, why do you care who he !@#$s? Why do you believe it's appropriate to designate his sexuality as a pejorative?

Things are about to get fun.

Why does anyone care who they like to !@#$? Seriously. Why?

For a guy like Strozk? Yes.

This dovetails perfectly with the theory that Lisa Page honeypotted him, and was his handler.

How in the world does that make it past the language filter?

Red herring. Libertarianism is the long arched goal of the progression of human freedom, which is still in it's infancy against the backdrop of the entirety of human history, and faces constant resistance from would be dictators and supporters of monarchy. It has never been tried, because it has yet to be achieved.

It's brilliant politics. It forces anyone who reacts to either: A) Acknowledge that Maxine Waters is an intellectual leader of their party. (a massive win for Republicans) or B) Forces Democrats to disavow Maxine Waters as an intellectual leader of their party, further fracturing it. (a massive win for Republicans)

It's central to the point, and leaves individuals like you talking out both sides of your mouths, which is why you haven't/won't answer the question directly. I also find it interesting that you're lampooning the President for not using the military as a show pony to propagandize as Bush, Clinton, and Obama did. Do you feel that the President should use the military for photo-ops as a propaganda tool for the popularity of his Administration? If so, why?

Wish casting is not a valid substitute for prognostication.

It's a legal standard, Joe, not my opinion.