Mudguard Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 7 hours ago, mormont said: So your suggestion is that tactically, Democrats should listen to Trump saying he has been 'completely exonerated', nod, and move on? And while he spends the next two years repeatedly denouncing Democrats for having falsely made up the whole thing, demanding investigations into Democrat collusion with the Russians, insisting that any and every subsequent Democrat charge is 'as phony as the Russia thing, which by the way was COMPLETELY PROVEN to be a Deep State conspiracy against me', what do you suggest the Democrats do then? First, let's see what's in the full report. If the DOJ releases a report with a reasonable amount of redactions to protect intelligence sources, and it confirms Barr's summary on the charge of conspiracy with Russia, then yes, then there's no point for Democrats to continue to pound sand with respect to the conspiracy charge. It's a hopeless cause. Engaging in endless Congressional investigations for show over an essentially decided issue is just going to enrage and motivate Republicans to come out and support Trump. It will further support Trump's claim that this investigation was/is a witch hunt, that even though he's been cleared by Mueller, Democrats are still engaging in bad faith efforts to take him down through illegitimate means. Democrats are going to have to take their lumps on this if the full report doesn't really help their case against Trump. I don't think continuing to pursue a lost cause in an unhinged manner is going to help Democrats in 2020, so what's the point in continuing to talk about it? I just don't see how this issue can now help Democrats with turnout in 2020. As others have mentioned, there's plenty of other things to talk about, like Trumps record and their own vision for the country. So, what do you think the Democrat's strategy on this should be if the full report doesn't help the Democrat's case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 7 hours ago, mormont said: So your suggestion is that tactically, Democrats should listen to Trump saying he has been 'completely exonerated', nod, and move on? And while he spends the next two years repeatedly denouncing Democrats for having falsely made up the whole thing, demanding investigations into Democrat collusion with the Russians, insisting that any and every subsequent Democrat charge is 'as phony as the Russia thing, which by the way was COMPLETELY PROVEN to be a Deep State conspiracy against me', what do you suggest the Democrats do then? Not nod-but certainly prepare to move on silently rather than fight Trump on this when the man they put their hopes in((Muller) is saying there’s no hard proof of conspiracy between Trump and Russia. Most people will overtime forget this issue so long as it’s stops being constantly bombarded in the news as if it’s the most important thing ever. In the mean time attack him on other things. For example, perhaps more Democrats in Congress could attack his war-hawkish with Venezuela. Going against his campaign’s rhetoric on it being a bad thing for America too be the world’s policeman. Or instances of corruption that aren’t tied to Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Mudguard said: Engaging in endless Congressional investigations for show over an essentially decided issue is just going to enrage and motivate Republicans to come out and support Trump. It will further support Trump's claim that this investigation was/is a witch hunt, that even though he's been cleared by Mueller, Democrats are still engaging in bad faith efforts to take him down through illegitimate means. Right, cuz this this isn't exactly what the GOP has done for the last two Democratic presidents. Last time I checked, turnabout isn't only fair play in politics, it's the standard. Let alone the fact that it's time for Congress to do it's job and investigate Trump. All we know that will do is galvanize the opposition - i.e. the Democrats - that's what the empirics say. Will it galvanize the GOP too into somehow more support for Trump? I dunno, and neither do you. That's definitely something you can figure out during the process over the next 16 months. 2 hours ago, Mudguard said: Democrats are going to have to take their lumps on this if the full report doesn't really help their case against Trump. I don't think continuing to pursue a lost cause in an unhinged manner is going to help Democrats in 2020, so what's the point in continuing to talk about it? Oh yeah? We'll then I assume you've never seen this: Did that hurt the GOP? Did the GOP "have to take their lumps" on their naked reasoning for shoving Benghazi up the American public's...No, they didn't, so gimme a fucking break on that one. 2 hours ago, Mudguard said: I just don't see how this issue can now help Democrats with turnout in 2020. As others have mentioned, there's plenty of other things to talk about, like Trumps record and their own vision for the country. It can help the Democrats by showing how they can immobilize Trump dead stop and provide better answers to what people actually care about. But I agree they should be other things to talk about - like that record deficit Trump's administration just ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Why is the media going along with the crowing of exoneration? That's not even what Mueller's report said. The closest to getting an answer is someone said -- and I don't know if that person is a legal expert at all -- didn't catch his name -- that if something is done in public, such as calling for Russia to drop Hillary's e-mails, it can't be collusion -- because it was done in public. I don't know if this true. I never heard of such a thing, but that doesn't mean anything either. If the media wouldn't put the crow on infinite repeat loop -- which it will forever now -- it would help a lot. The constant repetition just pushes 'he's innocent' (innocent of what, hmmmm? there's plenty we know he's guilty of) deeper into the minds of his supporters. The media, gads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Rhinos Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 6 hours ago, Relic said: I wrote this in early 2016, when i was convinced Trump would win. I think the answer is simple, and lies within the confines of one incredible statistic. This is a stat that blows my mind every time I check to reaffirm that it is actually true. 64 percent of Americans do not have a passport. That means that at least 64% of Americans have never left the U.S. The majority of citizens in the richest country in the world have NO IDEA what the rest of the world is like. I agree with the overall thrust of your post but this is a really sloppy use of statistics. Just because someone has a passport does not mean they have traveled overseas and just because someone doesn't have a passport doesn't mean they haven't traveled internationally. 3 hours ago, lokisnow said: Nice column. Even scarier corollary to that stat, probably at least a third of the 36% of people who have a passport (have traveled to another country) were military on deployment and thus have a skewed take on the rest of the world (ie overwhelming hate and contempt for Iraq and Afghanistan and the peoples there that they were in). In other words, the numbers are probably even worse than you think. And if you were to factor out people who have gone to Canada or Mexico the numbers are probably even worse. Roundtrip Airfare to Europe or Asia for two probably costs at least $6,000 most of the time, so it's pretty out of reach for almost everyone. If you're spending $3,000 for a round trip ticket to Europe you're trying to spend money. Cost is a barrier to international travel, but it isn't that high of a barrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, Zorral said: The media, gads. The left has just as much, if not more, of a gripe than the right in terms of the way "mainstream media" does things. They're just not whiny little bitches about it like the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 19 minutes ago, Zorral said: Why is the media going along with the crowing of exoneration? That's not even what Mueller's report said. The closest to getting an answer is someone said -- and I don't know if that person is a legal expert at all -- didn't catch his name -- that if something is done in public, such as calling for Russia to drop Hillary's e-mails, it can't be collusion -- because it was done in public. I don't know if this true. I never heard of such a thing, but that doesn't mean anything either. The same argument is also being made with regards to obstruction of justice, Loads of lawyers have come out since saying that's a BS argument. Honestly Democrats really can't make any long term strategic decisions until they get the full report and as many of the underlying documents as possible. One thing to keep in mind is that it sounds like Mueller went through the pros and cons of obstruction charges and then left the decision to Barr. Both Barr and Rosenstein are known to have broad interpretations of Executive power. It's quite possible that Mueller did make a good argument of more indictments and they decided it doesn't meet their standards, Also worth noting that this letter is lawyered up to hell. Barr specifically said that there was no knowing collusion with Russia. There's still a chance that Mueller determined there was unknowing coordination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 17 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said: If you're spending $3,000 for a round trip ticket to Europe you're trying to spend money. Cost is a barrier to international travel, but it isn't that high of a barrier. My buddies and I were planning a ten day trip to the UK to see a few soccer matches. Total cost per head was about $2,000 and we weren't roughing it. You can get tickets to most places for cheap if you plan in advance, go at the right time and accept a less desirable flight time. I'm looking right now and Minneapolis to London is $600-$800 on a month's notice. You can save $150-$250 if you do it like six months out I'd bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Holy sheet, Michael Avenatti has been arrested, charged with multi-million dollar fraud in two states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 46 minutes ago, DMC said: The left has just as much, if not more, of a gripe than the right in terms of the way "mainstream media" does things. They're just not whiny little bitches about it like the right. Goes double for the courts. "We must stop these liberal activist judges! Therefore, we must nominate conservative judges who appropriately interpret the law." There's no sense of irony that they constantly advocate for judges who are actual ideological activists. And naturally the goal posts slide again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Rhinos Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: My buddies and I were planning a ten day trip to the UK to see a few soccer matches. Total cost per head was about $2,000 and we weren't roughing it. You can get tickets to most places for cheap if you plan in advance, go at the right time and accept a less desirable flight time. I'm looking right now and Minneapolis to London is $600-$800 on a month's notice. You can save $150-$250 if you do it like six months out I'd bet. I can currently get round trip non-stop flights from Seattle to London for $424 if I'm planning six months out. Flying has dropped quite bit in price and I think some people haven't realized it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Reptitious Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Lord of Rhinos said: just because someone doesn't have a passport doesn't mean they haven't traveled internationally. Genuinely curious, how exactly does that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said: Genuinely curious, how exactly does that work? Because someone doesn’t have a passport now does not mean they’ve never had one. I had a passport in 1988. It expired in 1998 and I didn’t renew until 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Depends how you want to define internationally. Pre 9/11 going up to Canada you generally didn't need one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: The same argument is also being made with regards to obstruction of justice, Loads of lawyers have come out since saying that's a BS argument. Honestly Democrats really can't make any long term strategic decisions until they get the full report and as many of the underlying documents as possible. One thing to keep in mind is that it sounds like Mueller went through the pros and cons of obstruction charges and then left the decision to Barr. Both Barr and Rosenstein are known to have broad interpretations of Executive power. It's quite possible that Mueller did make a good argument of more indictments and they decided it doesn't meet their standards, Also worth noting that this letter is lawyered up to hell. Barr specifically said that there was no knowing collusion with Russia. There's still a chance that Mueller determined there was unknowing coordination. But why was it Barr's decision to make? It should have been the House that made that determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 2 hours ago, DMC said: Oh yeah? We'll then I assume you've never seen this: Did that hurt the GOP? Did the GOP "have to take their lumps" on their naked reasoning for shoving Benghazi up the American public's...No, they didn't, so gimme a fucking break on that one. Scandal Myth #8: To be politically effective, a scandal has to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Rhinos Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 38 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said: Genuinely curious, how exactly does that work? Like Scot said, passport's expire after ten years. Also, the passport rules used to be much looser for parts of the Western hemisphere and only started to get stricter in the wake of 9/11. As it is there are still other documents that can get you into and out of Canada and Mexico from the USA. Passport rules for minors also tend to be much looser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 51 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Because someone doesn’t have a passport now does not mean they’ve never had one. I had a passport in 1988. It expired in 1998 and I didn’t renew until 2007. Not only expirings, there's plenty of people that traveled to Canada and Mexico - which are the only places I've only been - before 9/11. You didn't need a passport before the Patriot Act for that. That's why treating that 64% number is a really bad operational measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 37 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said: Like Scot said, passport's expire after ten years. Also, the passport rules used to be much looser for parts of the Western hemisphere and only started to get stricter in the wake of 9/11. As it is there are still other documents that can get you into and out of Canada and Mexico from the USA. Passport rules for minors also tend to be much looser. Mine expired and I never got it renewed. I used to go to Canada quite regularly, and all you needed was a driver's license. The kids didn't need anything. You can get a passport card for $30. It's good for one land crossing across the border and back. No need for a full passport. As an aside since someone mentioned Venezuela. I was in Caracas in 1992 not long after the coup. Scary stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.