I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody. Because there's no there there.

You're kidding, right?

We basically already know that Stone and Flynn were at least talking to Russian intelligence. You honestly think they didn't do any joint game planning?

Now, maybe you just don't think it matters or care about it, but there's certainly something there to look at.

While Trump plays Nunes, and Nunes plays Schiff on this Russia bullshit, the narrative to which average voters are actually paying attention - ACA repeal - gets short shrift.

Wait, you think the average voter is paying more attention to the ACA repeal details? Um, no.

Friday's headline should read, if the Dems are smart, "Tea Party Sinks ACA Repeal."

I guess I think "Trump fails to deliver on health care promises" is probably better for the Dems.

The Dems are chasing too many shiny objects.

That may be true.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody. Because there's no there there.

The suggestion of nefarious behavior worked on Hillary during a campaign because she was facing a vote. Trump's in office. Focusing on the Russia thing is chasing the holy grail. It doesn't fucking exist. Sure, a clown like Stone may get indicted for smoothing, but Trump's not sophisticated enough, and Manafort is too smart, for there to have been any real collusion. (Manafort was playing his Russians, selling entree to nothing. He's the only guy more surprised than Trump that Trump was elected.)

While Trump plays Nunes, and Nunes plays Schiff on this Russia bullshit, the narrative to which average voters are actually paying attention - ACA repeal - gets short shrift.

Friday's headline should read, if the Dems are smart, "Tea Party Sinks ACA Repeal." That ink should not be competing with, "Schiff Says Nunes is Backstabber."

No one gives a fuck about the Russia story expect people reading boards like this, and the sliver of people still paying attention to the stories about it in WaPo and Times.

Millions more care about the ACA Repeal. And they care a lot.

The Dems are chasing too many shiny objects.

I think there is actually something wrong with you. Your desire to morph what is happening around you into something that fits your pre-conceived opinions is astounding. We just heard yesterday that [and I quote,] "there is more than circumstantial evidence now" that Trump associates colluded with Russia in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 election.

We also have the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who is tasked with investigating the current administration run to the very people he is investigating (and the fucking press) with information he has attained in the course of his investigation before talking to anyone else in the Committee.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Also, didn't you leave?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I guess I think "Trump fails to deliver on health care promises" is probably better for the Dems.

They're fucked whether they pass this bill or not. It's a terrible bill that will do heavy damage to their constituents, so they can't pass it. But if they fail to pass it, they look like fucking fools since they control everything. They know it. I think Ryan figures if he can push it through, at least he gets the tax reform for the rich he's had a hard-on for his whole life.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Also, didn't you leave?

TM

not fair. We all did, at least once.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

not fair. We all did, at least once.

Usually for more than 5 minutes.

(And everyone faced this question upon their return.)

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think there is actually something wrong with you. Your desire to morph what is happening around you into something that fits your pre-conceived opinions is astounding. We just heard yesterday that [and I quote,] "there is more than circumstantial evidence now" that Trump associates colluded with Russia in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 election.

We also have the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who is tasked with investigating the current administration run to the very people he is investigating (and the fucking press) with information he has attained in the course of his investigation before talking to anyone else in the Committee.

TM

Once a Russian Party apologist, always a Russian Party apologist.

One of the odds things about the Greedy Old Party denizens is that they simultaneously love to proclaim they're independent while adhering to every apology possible to let the Russian Party off the hook. Sebby, of course, will have nothing but glee for any tax savings that result from screwing people out of healthcare.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Usually for more than 5 minutes.

(And everyone faced this question upon their return.)

TM

Leaving was a way of saying "I'm not taking the blame for this shit storm I helped create" and trying to get us to back off from calling out his bullshit. By taking a few days off, he hoped we'd forget, he's part of why the Russians are running the place.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

not fair. We all did, at least once.

I didn't. I was never here. In fact, it is the tendency of people like Sebastian to speak with absolute certainty about issues that they does not have knowledge about that prevented me from ever stepping foot into this fetid cesspool of a so-called political debate in the first place.

Actual question for Sebastian. Putting aside that basically everything you said in your post is complete nonsense (e.g., you don't actually know whether or not collusion existed, you have zero information about what Manafort actually said to the Russians, your speculation about whether Trump was sophisticated enough to have engaged in illicit agreements with the Russians is entirely pulled from your ass, and your predictions about what voters do and do not care about have proven astoundingly unreliable in the past), let's just acknowledge that neither you nor I nor anyone else here knows what was said to Russia during the campaign and whether or not there was any influence on the campaign. But if you were a betting man, and you were forced to wager $100,000 on whether or not Trump or his campaign team had communications with Russia about influencing the election or about whether Russia had compromising information on Trump, and assuming you were going to get a definitive answer tomorrow, based solely on the fact that the administration seems desperate to distract from or otherwise subvert any investigation into these communications, wouldn't you put your money on "Yes"?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think there is actually something wrong with you. Your desire to morph what is happening around you into something that fits your pre-conceived opinions is astounding. We just heard yesterday that [and I quote,] "there is more than circumstantial evidence now" that Trump associates colluded with Russia in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 election.

We also have the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who is tasked with investigating the current administration run to the very people he is investigating (and the fucking press) with information he has attained in the course of his investigation before talking to anyone else in the Committee.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Also, didn't you leave?

TM

No one but people who already hate Trump, and Graham and McCain, care that his campaign opportunistically worked with Russians. Trump himself encouraged Russians to release HRC emails, on TV. What's the "big reveal" where the candidate himself already admitted the crime?

You think they'll find some conversation in which Manafort directed Russians to hack HRC? Fantasy. The only people likely to be ensnared here are useful idiots like Stone.

It's not illegal to talk to Russians. It's not illegal to tell Russians, "Hey. Keep those Wikileaks releases coming! They're really helping us." And there's no way this goes all the way to Trump. He'd probably be dumb enough to talk to Russians himself, but Putin's people aren't dumb enough to have allowed that to happen. Putin had to keep the Trump people in the dark enough to provide credible deniability. The best I think we'll find here is vague conversations that suggest collusion, but nothing proving direct coordination in any criminal act.

And then there's the final defense: "There is no evidence of the Russians, or anyone else, hacking into voting systems and physically changing votes." (Because that's pretty much impossible.)

The most the Dems get out of this is, "These dirty Trump people opportunistically worked in tandem with the Russians to smear HRC and the DNC and make them look bad. We think this changed the outcome."

Retort: "Tell us something we didn't already know."

Retort 2: "All's fair in politics."

Retort 3: "This is not illegal."

Hence, no there there. Politically, it's meh...

But the ACA debacle? That's a huge winner for the Dems. Monster embarrassment for not just Trump, but the entire GOP. I'd focus there and stop chasing this Russia stuff. Indicting Roger Stone, the best it'll yield, is Page Three crap.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No one but people who already hate Trump, and Graham and McCain, care that his campaign opportunistically worked with Russians. Trump himself encouraged Russians to release HRC emails, on TV. What's the "big reveal" where the candidate himself already admitted the crime?

You think they'll find some conversation in which Manafort directed Russians to hack HRC? Fantasy. The only people likely to be ensnared here are useful idiots like Stone.

It's not illegal to talk to Russians. It's not illegal to tell Russians, "Hey. Keep those Wikileaks releases coming! They're really helping us." And there's no way this goes all the way to Trump. He'd probably be dumb enough to talk to Russians himself, but Putin's people aren't dumb enough to have allowed that to happen. Putin had to keep the Trump people in the dark enough to provide credible deniability. The best I think we'll find here is vague conversations that suggest collusion, but nothing proving direct coordination in any criminal act.

And then there's the final defense: "There is no evidence of the Russians, or anyone else, hacking into voting systems and physically changing votes." (Because that's pretty much impossible.)

The most the Dems get out of this is, "These dirty Trump people opportunistically worked in tandem with the Russians to smear HRC and the DNC and make them look bad. We think this changed the outcome."

Retort: "Tell us something we didn't already know."

Retort 2: "All's fair in politics."

Retort 3: "This is not illegal."

Hence, no there there. Politically, it's meh...

But the ACA debacle? That's a huge winner for the Dems. Monster embarrassment for not just Trump, but the entire GOP. I'd focus there and stop chasing this Russia stuff. Indicting Roger Stone, the best it'll yield, is Page Three crap.

"And there's no way this goes all the way to Trump. He'd probably be dumb enough to talk to Russians himself, but Putin's people aren't dumb enough to have allowed that to happen. Putin had to keep the Trump people in the dark enough to provide credible deniability."

This is one of the examples of you speaking with complete certainty about something you have no actual information about. If I am wrong about this, then next time you speak to Putin, tell him to keep his shirt on because nobody wants to see that shit. Same advice I gave to Coltrane about standing in front of the microwave-surveillance camera when heating up his yuppie chili.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I didn't. I was never here. In fact, it is the tendency of people like Sebastian to speak with absolute certainty about issues that they does not have knowledge about that prevented me from ever stepping foot into this fetid cesspool of a so-called political debate in the first place.

Actual question for Sebastian. Putting aside that basically everything you said in your post is complete nonsense (e.g., you don't actually know whether or not collusion existed, you have zero information about what Manafort actually said to the Russians, your speculation about whether Trump was sophisticated enough to have engaged in illicit agreements with the Russians is entirely pulled from your ass, and your predictions about what voters do and do not care about have proven astoundingly unreliable in the past), let's just acknowledge that neither you nor I nor anyone else here knows what was said to Russia during the campaign and whether or not there was any influence on the campaign. But if you were a betting man, and you were forced to wager $100,000 on whether or not Trump or his campaign team had communications with Russia about influencing the election or about whether Russia had compromising information on Trump, and assuming you were going to get a definitive answer tomorrow, based solely on the fact that the administration seems desperate to distract from or otherwise subvert any investigation into these communications, wouldn't you put your money on "Yes"?

Of course they had those conversations. Who wouldn't? After the first drips from Wikileaks, it was clear Russia was sitting on a treasure trove of information damaging to Hillary and the DNC.

The important question is, was there communication which would qualify as criminal? Again, given the sophistication of the Russians, I'd have to say no. Given the idiocy of the low level Trump soldiers like Stone, I'd say some infantry there might be charged with crimes.

It's got an Iran/Contra kind of feel to it. You know some shenanigans took place, but nothing really sexy will be pinned on any of the people who matter.

A real criminal conspiracy at the highest levels would require Putin's people trusting Trump and his people. I just don't see the Russians ever doing that. Keeping the Trump people in the dark adequately enough to provide plausible deniability seems a baseline necessity.* It'd be spy malpractice to do otherwise.

__________
* ETA: In this regard, it has an Iraq/WMD bullshit campaign feel to it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

"And there's no way this goes all the way to Trump. He'd probably be dumb enough to talk to Russians himself, but Putin's people aren't dumb enough to have allowed that to happen. Putin had to keep the Trump people in the dark enough to provide credible deniability."

This is one of the examples of you speaking with complete certainty about something you have no actual information about. If I am wrong about this, then next time you speak to Putin, tell him to keep his shirt on because nobody wants to see that shit. Same advice I gave to Coltrane about standing in front of the microwave-surveillance camera when heating up his yuppie chili.

I'm thinking of it like chess. I could be totally dead wrong. But I'm assuming Putin to be a rational, calculating actor applying sensible risk avoidance. That's a fair assumption.

Assuming that, he had to keep Trump's people in the dark to protect them and himself.

Alternatively, his aim might be to have Trump impeached, to throw us into chaos. But this would result in a Pence Presidency, which would be more Establishment, and not as Putin-friendly. Seems all but certainly self defeating.

Of course I don't know. I'm obviously just providing an analysis of likely scenarios.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He'd probably be dumb enough to talk to Russians himself, but Putin's people aren't dumb enough to have allowed that to happen.

You seem to be assuming that Putin wants Trump to be president. He doesn't really. He wants to be able to create chaos, and having the ability to get the president ousted is a thing he'd like.

And then there's the final defense: "There is no evidence of the Russians, or anyone else, hacking into voting systems and physically changing votes." (Because that's pretty much impossible.)

How is that relevant to the coordination issue?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Of course they had those conversations. Who wouldn't?

Anyone who was smart enough not to put themselves in a compromising position.

First of all, if they're already helping you, why do you need to talk to them?

Second, you have to be smart enough to know that talking to them exposes you, because they can use that fact against you whenever they want (also, you need to be smart enough to know we're monitoring their communications).

[SEC_Chick]

The GOP won the House, Senate and WH largely on the promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. Only they could screw it up so badly. I have even called my dumbass congressman to tell him to vote no on the AHCA, and he has a local town hall on Saturday, which Mr. Chick will be attending, so we'll see what he has to say. Of course, he's a dumbass, so I fully expect him to vote for the bill. The best assessment I have seen regarding ACA vs. AHCA is that under the ACA, the government gives you money to buy insurance, while under the AHCA, the government gives you money to buy insurance. The AHCA is definitively no better than the ACA, and I reserve judgment on whether or not it is actually worse. Trump went to give the hard sell and lost votes in the process. I sure hope he checks out the Art of the Deal to learn some negotiation skills for the future. It is disheartening to see so many former conservatives buying into this binary choice nonsense. As if the only two options really were the ACA as enacted and the crap bill they've proposed.


If I were Manafort, and under investigation by the FBI, I'd probably be living on the ground floor, employing a food taster, and investing in a Geiger counter about now.

I have been wholly impressed with the Gorsuch hearings, and I didn't think it possible, but now I love Ben Sasse even more. I think it would be a mistake for Schumer to mount a filibuster, but I also thought it was a mistake to sit out Garland. Schumer's bet is that Trump is a one term President, but as much as I hate the guy, I don't have any confidence that the Dems could beat him on a second try, even as unpopular as he is. See the efforts to play up Chelsea's "spicy" online persona, which make me throw up in my mouth.