The Walls be Closing

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Once mainstream Republicans come around to this, we'll be in much better shape.  The reality is that Trumpers are going to make this country more socially liberal.  Republicans will move left on some social issues, because they can't win (even with Trumpers) without doing so.  Indys will come back into play, and economics will dictate elections again.  Trumpers will go back to being the marginalized whiners that they formerly were--many of them will wake up and become Democrats--and away we will go. 

 

I don't think you have grasped yet that the Republican Party that we used to think existed ain't coming back soon, if at all.

They are now an openly anti-establishment and anti-democracy Party. More importantly, their supporters would not return to support them if they went back to what they were.

The closet has opened and being openly authoritarian is the way of their supporters. I'm not sure how you can win those folks back by going to a Romney-type Republican Party and how many of the leaders of that Party would want to go back to the good old days.

Trump has explicitly stated that if he becomes President again, he will give far more power to the Executive branch.

That means autocracy and perhaps a dictatorship.

[SectionC3]

13 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

I don't think you have grasped yet that the Republican Party that we used to think existed ain't coming back soon, if at all.

They are now an openly anti-establishment and anti-democracy Party. More importantly, their supporters would not return to support them if they went back to what they were.

The closet has opened and being openly authoritarian is the way of their supporters. I'm not sure how you can win those folks back by going to a Romney-type Republican Party and how many of the leaders of that Party would want to go back to the good old days.

Trump has explicitly stated that if he becomes President again, he will give far more power to the Executive branch.

That means autocracy and perhaps a dictatorship.

I disagree.  Republicans have a “bill” to pay for Trump.  They also know how bad the Trumpers are.  One more loss in an even-year cycle and I think you’ll see them move faster to the center than maybe most expect. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm not wrong though.  The average voter isn't going to closely follow each case when the right uses that whataboutism to defend Trump.

It's not on the average voter to follow each case closely, and it never is.  In many cases, probably most, the average citizen votes on emotion.  The typical politician leverages that emotion, in many cases manipulating, embellishing or lying to appeal to as many voters as possible.

 

Voters are not prosecutors, defense attorneys, experts on classified document handling, but most have a strong ability to detect bull sh8t when it is served up.  The challenge is Dems see bs when it's served by Rs, and Rs see bs when served up by Dems.  

 

The facts are, from the R point of view anyway, that Trump was a victim of extreme political persecution by DOJ, FBI, dems.  There's plenty of evidence to support that, and there's plenty of evidence to support very questionable practices--up to illegal behavior.   

 

It's not just Hillary Clinton getting special treatment, it's well beyond that.  The DOJ raids Trump's place, sets up a photo shoot of allegedly classified documents strew about on the floor and leaks said photos. They spend hours there and 'accidentally' grab client/attorney documents, tax returns and private material, then suggest everybody trust them with the documents.  Meanwhile, the Biden SC investigation is locked down tighter than a drum, though classified and illegal documents were found in a garage. 

 

Then there's this, of course, where one of the most powerful men in the world tells truth.

 

Which leads to this (from the notoriously right wing ACLU):

 

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/do-us-politicians-need-fear-our-intelligence

 

And of course, reinforces the point that nobody trusts everybody, and just about everybody distrusts somebody, but it's usually limited to the guy who doesn't vote like you or run the agenda you like. 

 

"Whataboutism" isn't really the problem, and the average voter using it isn't the problem, either.  The problem is the political class is completely and irrevocably untrustworthy.   The other problem is that people forget what they were upset about when the last guy was in office, and remember that it's not really a big deal when their guy is running the show.

 

 

[Kemp]

31 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I disagree.  Republicans have a “bill” to pay for Trump.  They also know how bad the Trumpers are.  One more loss in an even-year cycle and I think you’ll see them move faster to the center than maybe most expect. 

 

Who will vote for them?

I think Trumpers won't vote for old-style Republicans for at least a few years, perhaps for a long time.

I think they'll either sit it out or go to a new 3rd Party.

Trump is going to go down. Expecting members of a cult to go back to Romney-type Republicans is tough for me to envision.

More likely DeSantis ultra right winger types.

[SectionC3]

Just now, Kemp said:

 

Who will vote for them?

I think Trumpers won't vote for old-style Republicans for at least a few years, perhaps for a long time.

I think they'll either sit it out or go to a new 3rd Party.

Trump is going to go down. Expecting members of a cult to go back to Romney-type Republicans is tough for me to envision.

More likely DeSantis ultra right winger types.

A good chunk of the cultists really weren’t republicans until Trump.  The republicans veered far right with his nationalism and alienated a lot of moderates and independents.  Without changing their social agenda, republicans will never get them back.  But if the social agenda moderates, they could build a coalition of normals and let the Trumpers scatter.  There will be pain before profit if they take that approach, though - I completely agree with you there. 

[Kemp]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It's not on the average voter to follow each case closely, and it never is.  In many cases, probably most, the average citizen votes on emotion.  The typical politician leverages that emotion, in many cases manipulating, embellishing or lying to appeal to as many voters as possible.

 

Voters are not prosecutors, defense attorneys, experts on classified document handling, but most have a strong ability to detect bull sh8t when it is served up.  The challenge is Dems see bs when it's served by Rs, and Rs see bs when served up by Dems.  

 

The facts are, from the R point of view anyway, that Trump was a victim of extreme political persecution by DOJ, FBI, dems.  There's plenty of evidence to support that, and there's plenty of evidence to support very questionable practices--up to illegal behavior.   

 

It's not just Hillary Clinton getting special treatment, it's well beyond that.  The DOJ raids Trump's place, sets up a photo shoot of allegedly classified documents strew about on the floor and leaks said photos. They spend hours there and 'accidentally' grab client/attorney documents, tax returns and private material, then suggest everybody trust them with the documents.  Meanwhile, the Biden SC investigation is locked down tighter than a drum, though classified and illegal documents were found in a garage. 

 

Then there's this, of course, where one of the most powerful men in the world tells truth.

 

Which leads to this (from the notoriously right wing ACLU):

 

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/do-us-politicians-need-fear-our-intelligence

 

And of course, reinforces the point that nobody trusts everybody, and just about everybody distrusts somebody, but it's usually limited to the guy who doesn't vote like you or run the agenda you like. 

 

"Whataboutism" isn't really the problem, and the average voter using it isn't the problem, either.  The problem is the political class is completely and irrevocably untrustworthy.   The other problem is that people forget what they were upset about when the last guy was in office, and remember that it's not really a big deal when their guy is running the show.

 

 

 

Hillary's special treatment from the FBI arguably put Trump in office.

Trump was raided solely because he ignored subpoenas. 

If he had complied, he wouldn't have been prosecuted. He did it to himself.

That's not persecution.

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

Second - BleachBit deleted personal emails of HER server after 55,000 work related emails was returned. You know what BleachBit did NOT do? Delete emails sitting on the recipients server. Trump also never tells you that nor does he tell you that the FBI was able to retrieve some of those deleted emails.

They don't care and they wouldn't believe it anyways because of their deep distrust of our institutions.  When the director of the FBI publicly called her handling of classified documents "extremely careless" but didn't recommend chargers it's all they needed to think there is a double standard of justice.  It's as simple as that.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Doc Brown

[BillStime]

29 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

They don't care and they wouldn't believe it anyways because of their deep distrust of our institutions.  When the director of the FBI publicly called her handling of classified documents "extremely careless" but didn't recommend chargers it's all they needed to think there is a double standard of justice.  It's as simple as that.

 

We know - facts don't matter to the cult - just psyops. 

 

Trump: If elected, I’ll appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s emails

 

What happened?

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

Hillary's special treatment from the FBI arguably put Trump in office.

Trump was raided solely because he ignored subpoenas. 

If he had complied, he wouldn't have been prosecuted. He did it to himself.

That's not persecution.

Hillary Clinton's actions cost her the election, the special treatment allowed her to stay in the game and walk away unscathed.  It didn't move the needle for dem loyalists to any great degree, many of whom are up in arms today over safety and security of our nation's secrets. 

 

I agree that Trump's handling of classified material was an unforced error, and didn't need to happen.  The argument, however, that the only option to resolve the matter involved an armed raid makes little sense.  It makes even less sense when considering how it all played out when the agents conducted the raid.  It makes less sense, still, when it seems logical to assume that national security issues aren't really all that big a deal on that level, given the treatment of Clinton, Pence, and Biden.  It seems that those folks can remove documents at will, stash 'em wherever, share as they see fit, but must be prepared to say "Geesh, I never knew I had 'em!" to beat the system. 

 

As I said, it's an emotional issue when it comes to voters any way you slice it. 

 

The persecution in question commenced in 2015, Kemp.  It's well-established, documented, and has been discussed by leaders of the free world regularly.  You may not like those people, but it's true nonetheless.   

Edited July 28, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 hours ago, Kemp said:

Trump is going to go down. Expecting members of a cult to go back to Romney-type Republicans is tough for me to envision.

More likely DeSantis ultra right winger types.

It seems some of the MAGA R's are realizing the folly in backing trump, even here, on this board.  The Desantis discussion is interesting in that some are cheering for his rise in the polls.  I don't think trump can be beaten in the R primary.  The die is cast.

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hillary Clinton's actions cost her the election, the special treatment allowed her to stay in the game and walk away unscathed.  It didn't move the needle for dem loyalists to any great degree, many of whom are up in arms today over safety and security of our nation's secrets. 

 

I agree that Trump's handling of classified material was an unforced error, and didn't need to happen.  The argument, however, that the only option to resolve the matter involved an armed raid makes little sense.  It makes even less sense when considering how it all played out when the agents conducted the raid.  It makes less sense, still, when it seems logical to assume that national security issues aren't really all that big a deal on that level, given the treatment of Clinton, Pence, and Biden.  It seems that those folks can remove documents at will, stash 'em wherever, share as they see fit, but must be prepared to say "Geesh, I never knew I had 'em!" to beat the system. 

 

As I said, it's an emotional issue when it comes to voters any way you slice it. 

 

The persecution in question commenced in 2015, Kemp.  It's well-established, documented, and has been discussed by leaders of the free world regularly.  You may not like those people, but it's true nonetheless.   

 

You believe Comey helped Clinton? That's cute.

So, it's your position that the FBI should have allowed Trump to keep the documents he stole and refused to return?

If you want to go back a couple of years, to find origin, why stop there?

Let's go back to '84, when Reagan demonized the American government, forcing distrust by Republicans. That and wedding Republicans to white Christian Evangelism. That's what changed the Republican Party and will be its death knell, presuming Trump doen't skate and Republican legislatures don't overturn election results.

3 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

I don't think you have grasped yet that the Republican Party that we used to think existed ain't coming back soon, if at all.

They are now an openly anti-establishment and anti-democracy Party. More importantly, their supporters would not return to support them if they went back to what they were.

The closet has opened and being openly authoritarian is the way of their supporters. I'm not sure how you can win those folks back by going to a Romney-type Republican Party and how many of the leaders of that Party would want to go back to the good old days.

Trump has explicitly stated that if he becomes President again, he will give far more power to the Executive branch.

That means autocracy and perhaps a dictatorship.

 

Are Irv and Farley the same person?

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

We know - facts don't matter to the cult - just psyops. 

 

Trump: If elected, I’ll appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s emails

 

What happened?

 

He won the election.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

You believe Comey helped Clinton? That's cute.

So, it's your position that the FBI should have allowed Trump to keep the documents he stole and refused to return?

If you want to go back a couple of years, to find origin, why stop there?

Let's go back to '84, when Reagan demonized the American government, forcing distrust by Republicans. That and wedding Republicans to white Christian Evangelism. That's what changed the Republican Party and will be its death knell, presuming Trump doen't skate and Republican legislatures don't overturn election results.

 

Are Irv and Farley the same person?

I think I was pretty clear on H Clinton and the FBI.  I'm not sure why you're struggling with what I wrote?

 

On the second question, you've positioned the choices as:

• Trump gets to keep the material;
• The FBI has to storm the castle;

That reflects a closed mindset and limitation of thought.  

 

There were additional options, including providing Trump more time to review the material to see if there were personal items intermingled with classified docs, allowing Trump to shred/destroy items he felt were beyond the scope of the government authority, and engaging in civil discourse as to the ultimate resolution of the matter.  

 

I do agree that bustin the door down was an option as well. 

 

Your commentary on RReagan is interesting.  Not to me, per se, but maybe to someone else.  My commentary was limited to the subject at hand. 

 

I think you addressed the Irv and Farley question to yourself, but in case you don't answer, I have no idea.  I do think the @Irv reply to Simon in the thread about the Women's Soccer team is one of the funniest I've seen in a long time.   Kudos to Irv in that regard, and if he is Farley, Kudos to @Chris farley as well.  

[Irv]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think I was pretty clear on H Clinton and the FBI.  I'm not sure why you're struggling with what I wrote?

 

On the second question, you've positioned the choices as:

• Trump gets to keep the material;
• The FBI has to storm the castle;

That reflects a closed mindset and limitation of thought.  

 

There were additional options, including providing Trump more time to review the material to see if there were personal items intermingled with classified docs, allowing Trump to shred/destroy items he felt were beyond the scope of the government authority, and engaging in civil discourse as to the ultimate resolution of the matter.  

 

I do agree that bustin the door down was an option as well. 

 

Your commentary on RReagan is interesting.  Not to me, per se, but maybe to someone else.  My commentary was limited to the subject at hand. 

 

I think you addressed the Irv and Farley question to yourself, but in case you don't answer, I have no idea.  I do think the @Irv reply to Simon in the thread about the Women's Soccer team is one of the funniest I've seen in a long time.   Kudos to Irv in that regard, and if he is Farley, Kudos to @Chris farley as well.  

 

Thanks.  I was about a C hair away from a TBD vacation.  Look.  I've answered this question a million times.  I've never been in business with @Chris farley

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Irv

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

Thanks.  I was about a C hair away from a TBD vacation.  

That's no way to treat a moderator.  The funniest part was the lead up, as you argued that you didn't want to get drawn into a political conversation.  Now, it was also funny that the other poster clearly wanted to debate the political element and prodded accordingly, presumably un-pointed.

 

Btw, I don't really find anything about the US Team (men's or women's) all the compelling.  I used to love the amateur element of it all (or at least the appearance of it), but now, watching professional athletes banging away in b-ball is sorta boring.   

7 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

Thanks.  I was about a C hair away from a TBD vacation.  

By the way--are you Farley?  Is Farley you? 

[Irv]

10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That's no way to treat a moderator.  The funniest part was the lead up, as you argued that you didn't want to get drawn into a political conversation.  Now, it was also funny that the other poster clearly wanted to debate the political element and prodded accordingly, presumably un-pointed.

 

Btw, I don't really find anything about the US Team (men's or women's) all the compelling.  I used to love the amateur element of it all (or at least the appearance of it), but now, watching professional athletes banging away in b-ball is sorta boring.   

By the way--are you Farley?  Is Farley you? 

 

Can't say that I'm him.  But he might be me.    

 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Irv

[ChiGoose]

32 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There were additional options, including providing Trump more time to review the material to see if there were personal items intermingled with classified docs, allowing Trump to shred/destroy items he felt were beyond the scope of the government authority, and engaging in civil discourse as to the ultimate resolution of the matter.  

 

 

I still struggle to understand this viewpoint, honestly. The timeline makes it clear that there wasn't much of a choice left at that point:

• The government notified Trump that he had their stuff
• Trump refused to return it
• Over the better part of a year, the government tried to get Trump to return it
• Eventually, Trump turns over boxes of stuff and tells the government that he returned everything
• Then the government learns that Trump was lying and actually still had stuff, having intentionally kept it from the government (and, as it turns out, his own freaking lawyer)

At that point, it's completely clear to anyone that this guy is not trustworthy on this. Why would you expect that he'd actually do a good faith review after he intentionally deceived you? Why would you think he'd honestly return the materials when you know he's been lying to you the whole time?

 

If securing the documents is important (and obviously it was), I don't think you have any options other than to execute a search warrant.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I still struggle to understand this viewpoint, honestly. The timeline makes it clear that there wasn't much of a choice left at that point:

• The government notified Trump that he had their stuff
• Trump refused to return it
• Over the better part of a year, the government tried to get Trump to return it
• Eventually, Trump turns over boxes of stuff and tells the government that he returned everything
• Then the government learns that Trump was lying and actually still had stuff, having intentionally kept it from the government (and, as it turns out, his own freaking lawyer)

At that point, it's completely clear to anyone that this guy is not trustworthy on this. Why would you expect that he'd actually do a good faith review after he intentionally deceived you? Why would you think he'd honestly return the materials when you know he's been lying to you the whole time?

 

If securing the documents is important (and obviously it was), I don't think you have any options other than to execute a search warrant.

I appreciate the question, but you seem to be starting with the premise that any player in this sordid game can be trusted.  I don't start there, I start with "Question everyone's motives.".   

 

You also start at the premise that 'securing the documents was important', I'll reply that 'securing the documents definitely seems like a major issue and threat to our National Security...this time'.  As near as I can tell, there is no significant attention paid to removal of documents, no one really accountable for the proper handling of said documents, no real concern about unprotected access online, or the sharing of classified information with others, or wasn't until 2023. 

 

It seems to me, Chi, it's a major sh8t show on that level, where the relative aggressiveness of the response is directly related to who the target is. 

 

Trump created this problem, Trump is being steamrolled by this problem, and Trump exposed his throat to his enemies and they attacked.  As I've said before, the dems were willing to tear the country apart to get him, it was reckless and foolish to give them more ammunition to destroy him. 

 

There were other options.  There are always other options. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc]

6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hillary Clinton's actions cost her the election, the special treatment allowed her to stay in the game and walk away unscathed.  It didn't move the needle for dem loyalists to any great degree, many of whom are up in arms today over safety and security of our nation's secrets. 

 

I agree that Trump's handling of classified material was an unforced error, and didn't need to happen.  The argument, however, that the only option to resolve the matter involved an armed raid makes little sense.  It makes even less sense when considering how it all played out when the agents conducted the raid.  It makes less sense, still, when it seems logical to assume that national security issues aren't really all that big a deal on that level, given the treatment of Clinton, Pence, and Biden.  It seems that those folks can remove documents at will, stash 'em wherever, share as they see fit, but must be prepared to say "Geesh, I never knew I had 'em!" to beat the system. 

 

As I said, it's an emotional issue when it comes to voters any way you slice it. 

 

The persecution in question commenced in 2015, Kemp.  It's well-established, documented, and has been discussed by leaders of the free world regularly.  You may not like those people, but it's true nonetheless.   

 

That's how they rationalize their guy(s) having material they never should have had in the first place, in some instances for decades, with no idea what they did with it.  "They didn't know they had it but they gave it back so it's all good!"