Trump would take foreign help in election and not tell FBI: "They have information. I think I'd take it"

[HomerJS]

This fits with the recurring pattern of Democrats breaking norms or engaged in self-serving behavior in a small way, then see Republicans take the strategy and ratchet it up by several orders of magnitude shortly thereafter.

Dems hold up some Bush judicial nominees because they can, GOP does it wholesale to years of nominees.

Dems "Bork" an otherwise qualified nominee because they are afraid of his politics, GOP does it for multiple nominees to the same court for openly partisan reasons.

Biden muses about delaying SCOTUS nominees in an election year, the GOP does it openly to Merrick Garland.

Dems close ranks to protect a lame duck Bill Clinton from being convicted in impeachment when video evidence of lying under oath was public, GOP refuses to even consider voting for impeachment much less conviction with a Donald Trump who willingly flouts all norms and laws as he sees fit.


Progressives, just think about the above every time you advocate for something that provides you a momentary partisan advantage. The GOP has proved time and time again that decision will come back to haunt you and reverse severalfold the momentary advantage you gained.

So which Democrat took intelligence from an enemy of the United States to use in an election? Absent, that this is a giant #whataboutism response

 

[glenn1]

So which Democrat took intelligence from an enemy of the United States to use in an election? Absent, that this is a giant #whataboutism response

Who gives a shit? You can call it #whataboutism all you want, but we no longer live in a truly free nation - Dem or GOP we're all just intelligence sources anyway. If Trump loses or gets removed from office that would be a great thing for the world but don't be naive, the "enemy of the U.S. interfering in our elections" genie is out of the bottle. I have no doubt it's happened before (just as the U.S. has repeatedly meddled in other country's elections for decades) and it's not going away if a Dem wins in 2020, or ever.

 

[TheVrolok]

This fits with the recurring pattern of Democrats breaking norms or engaged in self-serving behavior in a small way, then see Republicans take the strategy and ratchet it up by several orders of magnitude shortly thereafter.

Dems hold up some Bush judicial nominees because they can, GOP does it wholesale to years of nominees.

Dems "Bork" an otherwise qualified nominee because they are afraid of his politics, GOP does it for multiple nominees to the same court for openly partisan reasons.

Biden muses about delaying SCOTUS nominees in an election year, the GOP does it openly to Merrick Garland.

Dems close ranks to protect a lame duck Bill Clinton from being convicted in impeachment when video evidence of lying under oath was public, GOP refuses to even consider voting for impeachment much less conviction with a Donald Trump who willingly flouts all norms and laws as he sees fit.


Progressives, just think about the above every time you advocate for something that provides you a momentary partisan advantage. The GOP has proved time and time again that decision will come back to haunt you and reverse severalfold the momentary advantage you gained.

Holy fuck that's a stupid argument. Does that really make sense to you?

 

[HomerJS]

Who gives a shit? You can call it #whataboutism all you want, but we no longer live in a truly free nation - Dem or GOP we're all just intelligence sources anyway. If Trump loses or gets removed from office that would be a great thing for the world but don't be naive, the "enemy of the U.S. interfering in our elections" genie is out of the bottle. I have no doubt it's happened before (just as the U.S. has repeatedly meddled in other country's elections for decades) and it's not going away if a Dem wins in 2020, or ever.

Then maybe its about time Democrats say "fuck those motherfuckers". Mayor Pete is in favor of adding 4 justices to SCOTUS. Dems take over the Senate and White House, go for it.

 

[glenn1]

So which Democrat took intelligence from an enemy of the United States to use in an election? Absent, that this is a giant #whataboutism response

Also, Dems (and Republicans) have long taken "intelligence from an enemy of the United States to use in an election" but we just use it against other countries in their elections. From sending taxpayer dollars to influence Israeli elections, to repeatedly interfering in Russian elections to outright spying in our own right like Tapping Angela Merkel's phone there's absolutely no standing for the U.S. to complain about meddling in its own elections whatsoever.

 

[glenn1]

Then maybe its about time Democrats say "fuck those motherfuckers". Mayor Pete is in favor of adding 4 justices to SCOTUS. Dems take over the Senate and White House, go for it.

LOL, and again you set up the magnified retaliation. If Dems add 4 SCOTUS judges the next time GOP gets back in power they'll add 4,000. I just gave several examples of it already happening, do you stupidly think this time it will be different and the GOP will just tuck tail and accept the Dems doing it without responding?

 

[HomerJS]

Also, Dems (and Republicans) have long taken "intelligence from an enemy of the United States to use in an election" but we just use it against other countries in their elections. From sending taxpayer dollars to influence Israeli elections, to repeatedly interfering in Russian elections to outright spying in our own right like Tapping Angela Merkel's phone there's absolutely no standing for the U.S. to complain about meddling in its own elections whatsoever.

However a US presidential candidate being complicit in aiding a foreign power to interfere is a first. Not turning Russia in helped them carry out their plan.

Republicans would have impeached the Negro months ago for half the allegations.

 

[fskimospy]

Also, Dems (and Republicans) have long taken "intelligence from an enemy of the United States to use in an election" but we just use it against other countries in their elections. From sending taxpayer dollars to influence Israeli elections, to repeatedly interfering in Russian elections to outright spying in our own right like Tapping Angela Merkel's phone there's absolutely no standing for the U.S. to complain about meddling in its own elections whatsoever.

Is this a joke? So if Russia flew over and bombed Times Square today you think the US wouldn't have any right to be mad because we bomb other people all the time? You did not think this through.

Not only is the US under no obligation to be consistent in its actions towards others vs. what it permits towards itself, it's affirmatively obligated NOT to do so because its goal is to work in the best interests of US citizens. It is entirely fine from a US perspective to meddle in the elections of other countries and then be angry when they do it to us. It would be stupid to think otherwise.

 

[K1052]

Checked in on Fox this morning. Mum's the word. Hmm this is one of the biggest news stories from yesterday.

You mean they aren't a real news network?? I'm shocked.

Also, contrary to what he says, Trump watches all the other outlets and the coverage is uh...not good. He's being excoriated across the board out in the non-Fox world. As bears out in his morning tantrum:

 

[brycejones]

Also, contrary to what he says, Trump watches all the other outlets and the coverage is uh...not good. He's being excoriated across the board out in the non-Fox world. As bears out in his morning tantrum:


View attachment 7358

Remember trust only Trump, not what you see or hear.

 

[repoman0]

LOL, and again you set up the magnified retaliation. If Dems add 4 SCOTUS judges the next time GOP gets back in power they'll add 4,000. I just gave several examples of it already happening, do you stupidly think this time it will be different and the GOP will just tuck tail and accept the Dems doing it without responding?

Who cares? Then dems should add 40000 next time, ad infinitum until our government breaks or the baby boomers finally die off and republicans don’t get votes anymore. One side can’t be allowed to be the only side that retaliates.

 

[brycejones]

Holy fuck that's a stupid argument. Does that really make sense to you?

glenn1 thinks everyone is as shitty of a human as he is. So it makes complete sense to him.

 

[K1052]

This fits with the recurring pattern of Democrats breaking norms or engaged in self-serving behavior in a small way, then see Republicans take the strategy and ratchet it up by several orders of magnitude shortly thereafter.

Dems hold up some Bush judicial nominees because they can, GOP does it wholesale to years of nominees.

Dems "Bork" an otherwise qualified nominee because they are afraid of his politics, GOP does it for multiple nominees to the same court for openly partisan reasons.

Biden muses about delaying SCOTUS nominees in an election year, the GOP does it openly to Merrick Garland.

Dems close ranks to protect a lame duck Bill Clinton from being convicted in impeachment when video evidence of lying under oath was public, GOP refuses to even consider voting for impeachment much less conviction with a Donald Trump who willingly flouts all norms and laws as he sees fit.


Progressives, just think about the above every time you advocate for something that provides you a momentary partisan advantage. The GOP has proved time and time again that decision will come back to haunt you and reverse severalfold the momentary advantage you gained.

This is up there with the "liberals make otherwise normal people become Nazis" argument.

 

[Homerboy]

So, If you're the cyber security team for the DNC or any of the leading democratic candidates, what's your game plan? How do you harden yourself against what will likley be multiple nations trying to get into your servers and data?

I think the first thing is to sit down all the principle characters and explain to them the dos and don'ts and clear simple terms. Users will always be the weakest link and it's paramount they are trained properly.

2ndly, in the same meetings, I think I explain to those people they are going to be SEVERELY limited in what they can and can't do. It may make things a little slower "harder" but it's a ig step in locking things down.

3rdly, I think it's important to bring in BIG names for your services. Don't try to do this shit in-house. bring in Amazon AWS, MS Azure, Cisco etc etc. Use their services (which should be pretty hardened, but certainly not impenetrable as nothing truly is... ) But having their resources and "power" and clout at your disposal would immensely helpful.

 

[Homerboy]

Remember when Gore was offered info on GWB's campaign and turned it over the the FBI? Can we please go back to even that mediocrity of civility and lawfulness.

 

[glenn1]

However a US presidential candidate being complicit in aiding a foreign power to interfere is a first. Not turning Russia in helped them carry out their plan.

Republicans would have impeached the Negro months ago for half the allegations.

Dems refused to allow the removal of a President for lying under oath and indeed closed ranks to defend him. You lose standing to complain about partisans defending "their guy" next go around when the guy who should be removed (Trump) is in power. If getting and retaining power is all that matters, then sorry that you only started caring about it when "their party" is in power. The norm was set in 1998, deal with the consequences of that. And when it happens again and it's your side who's the guy at 1600 PA Avenue, remember how you felt when the GOP did nothing to stop Trump.

Who cares? Then dems should add 40000 next time, ad infinitum until our government breaks or the baby boomers finally die off and republicans don’t get votes anymore. One side can’t be allowed to be the only side that retaliates.

If you don't want to be the "only side that retaliates" then don't start the cycle of provocation by adding 4 justices in the first place.

 

[glenn1]

dp

 

[fskimospy]

This fits with the recurring pattern of Democrats breaking norms or engaged in self-serving behavior in a small way, then see Republicans take the strategy and ratchet it up by several orders of magnitude shortly thereafter.

This is some really bad history and you're doing rhetorical gymnastics to create a narrative that's absolute silliness. These are all artifacts of increased partisan polarization driven primarily by Republicans' increasing extremism.

Dems hold up some Bush judicial nominees because they can, GOP does it wholesale to years of nominees.

Ahistorical nonsense. When Democrats held up some Bush judicial nominees both sides reached an agreement so that they wouldn't do it anymore. Republicans broke that agreement because it was no longer convenient for them to uphold it.

I mean are you really so naive as to think that Republicans WOULDN'T have blocked Obama's judicial nominees despite making the composition of the courts one of their primary focuses for decades just because it would break norms? Come on, nobody is this gullible. Have you not been paying any attention over the years?

Dems "Bork" an otherwise qualified nominee because they are afraid of his politics, GOP does it for multiple nominees to the same court for openly partisan reasons.

1) Not the same court. His nomination to SCOTUS was blocked, not the DC circuit.
2) To be clear, you believe that Republicans, despite confirming plenty of Democratic nominated judges to the DC circuit in the years after Bork's SCOTUS nomination failed, suddenly woke up in 2013 and decided it was time to get revenge for an imagined norm that was broken back in 1987? lolwut. I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that Obama's nominations would have flipped the partisan composition of the court. Nahhhh, I'm sure they were just mad about a nomination a quarter century ago to a different court.

/facepalm

Biden muses about delaying SCOTUS nominees in an election year, the GOP does it openly to Merrick Garland.

Yes, I'm sure that Republicans totally wouldn't have blocked Garland's nomination if only Joe Biden hadn't made a speech 20 years earlier. There's no way you actually believe this shit.
Republicans did it in this case for the same reason as the DC circuit, it would flip the governing majority of the court. They don't give a single shit about Biden's speech and you know it.

Dems close ranks to protect a lame duck Bill Clinton from being convicted in impeachment when video evidence of lying under oath was public, GOP refuses to even consider voting for impeachment much less conviction with a Donald Trump who willingly flouts all norms and laws as he sees fit.

Wow, you've found a way to blame Democrats for Trump. Amazing.

Progressives, just think about the above every time you advocate for something that provides you a momentary partisan advantage. The GOP has proved time and time again that decision will come back to haunt you and reverse severalfold the momentary advantage you gained.

You're desperately trying to find ways to blame Democrats for Republicans' radicalism. It is entirely obvious to anyone looking at this logically that the reasons Republicans are doing this is not because of some imagined past breaking of norms, it's because it would cause them to lose power.

What progressives need to do is to start fighting back more forcefully against this sort of thing. As others have said if Republicans pack the court back with 4,000 then you pack it back with 40,000. Then you disband all the lower federal courts and re-create them with only Democratic appointees. Then you turn to the Republicans and say 'this can stop any time you want'. Basic game theory.

 

[fskimospy]

Dems refused to allow the removal of a President for lying under oath and indeed closed ranks to defend him. You lose standing to complain about partisans defending "their guy" next go around when the guy who should be removed (Trump) is in power. If getting and retaining power is all that matters, then sorry that you only started caring about it when "their party" is in power. The norm was set in 1998, deal with the consequences of that. And when it happens again and it's your side who's the guy at 1600 PA Avenue, remember how you felt when the GOP did nothing to stop Trump.

Are you seriously trying to argue that because Democrats declined to remove President Clinton for lying in a civil deposition about an affair that the same norm applies to Republicans not removing Trump for abuse of his powers of office for obstructing the investigation into how a hostile foreign power attacked our elections and likely made him president to begin with?

I bet if you asked the average American if they thought lying in a civil case was worthy of removing a president from office they would say no.

I bet if you asked the average American if they thought obstructing an investigation into a hostile foreign power's attack on our elections was worthy of removal they would say yes.

If you don't want to be the "only side that retaliates" then don't start the cycle of provocation by adding 4 justices in the first place.

I think we both know that you ALWAYS need to retaliate until the other side is willing to call a cease fire. There's no indication that Republicans are willing to do that so you have to hit back twice as hard every time.

 

[glenn1]

What progressives need to do is to start fighting back more forcefully against this sort of thing. As others have said if Republicans pack the court back with 4,000 then you pack it back with 40,000. Then you disband all the lower federal courts and re-create them with only Democratic appointees. Then you turn to the Republicans and say 'this can stop any time you want'. Basic game theory.

Basic game theory also says you consider who has the guns and the knowledge of how to use them before you make your endgame move. The "4 then 40k pack" would cause American Revolution v2 and rightfully so. There would be no "you can stop this any time you want" since the only stable end state would be either status quo ante, or the complete unconditional surrender of one side or the other.

 

[repoman0]

Basic game theory also says you consider who has the guns and the knowledge of how to use them before you make your endgame move. The "4 then 40k pack" would cause American Revolution v2 and rightfully so. There would be no "you can stop this any time you want" since the only stable end state would be either status quo ante, or the complete unconditional surrender of one side or the other.

And we’ve descended into bullshit revolution fantasies, basically entirely unworthy of serious discussion. If red states want to leave the union, we let them have their shithole country with zero economic opportunity.

 

[glenn1]

And we’ve descended into bullshit revolution fantasies, basically entirely unworthy of serious discussion. If red states want to leave the union, we let them have their shithole country with zero economic opportunity.

"Revolutionary fantasies" are actually more realistic than the one where Dems win a court packing fight and the right accepts that outcome, effectively locking in Dem control of the country for generations if not all time.

 

[Maxima1]

"Revolutionary fantasies" are actually more realistic than the one where Dems win a court packing fight and the right accepts that outcome, effectively locking in Dem control of the country for generations if not all time.

The "right" isn't the majority of the country, and the old farts are dying off. Would be glad to see a revolution.

 

[HomerJS]

Dems refused to allow the removal of a President for lying under oath and indeed closed ranks to defend him. You lose standing to complain about partisans defending "their guy" next go around when the guy who should be removed (Trump) is in power. If getting and retaining power is all that matters, then sorry that you only started caring about it when "their party" is in power. The norm was set in 1998, deal with the consequences of that. And when it happens again and it's your side who's the guy at 1600 PA Avenue, remember how you felt when the GOP did nothing to stop Trump.




If you don't want to be the "only side that retaliates" then don't start the cycle of provocation by adding 4 justices in the first place.

I make a distinction between going 2 mph over the limit vs 40 over. Lying about a blowjob is pretty common among the populus. While lying under oath is a crime the people decided it didn't warrant impeachment and removal. In this case we have traitorus acts against the United States.

If you want to go down your route it started with not prosecuting Nixon. Subsequent Presidents know there won't be consequences for shenanigans.

 

[fskimospy]

Basic game theory also says you consider who has the guns and the knowledge of how to use them before you make your endgame move. The "4 then 40k pack" would cause American Revolution v2 and rightfully so.

If you think there would be an armed civil war over the composition of the Supreme Court you are living in a fantasy world. The average person simply doesn't care.

There would be no "you can stop this any time you want" since the only stable end state would be either status quo ante, or the complete unconditional surrender of one side or the other.

If you know game theory you know that's factually false. In an infinitely repeating game of this sort where each party has the opportunity to cooperate or defect employing a tit for tat strategy leads to a cooperative equilibrium in a large amount of cases. It's not perfect, but nothing in the real world is. It's possible that it can enter a sort of defection spiral but for Democrats that's no worse anyway as not retaliating is also an unconditional surrender, just a more drawn out one.