(11-01-2017, 02:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mean like National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Federalist, or American Conservative?
(11-01-2017, 02:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I only follow Federalist because Sean Davis is a whacko and it's hilarious. And yeah, non of those are progressive. They are conservative outlets. You view is skewed if you think those are progressive. The people with those publications are the people able to have real discussions that are evidence and logic based about the political topics of today, but they are conservative through and through.
Been reading some books lately. Among them "Conscience of a Conservative" by Sen. Flake and "How the Right Lost its Mind" by Charlie Sykes a conservative radio talk show personality. Both cited your news sites as bedrocks of conservative news and journalism (except The Federalist, neither mentioned that one but you now have me curious ). I highly recommend both books whether you are conservative or Liberal. Especially for some one like you that likes to get into the meat of politics. Interesting reads.
(11-01-2017, 11:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Establishment GOP are nothing but progressives. They are why we had Bush, McCain, and Romney.
I also suggest that you read the books I mentioned to Bels above. Your views seem more in line with a nativist/populists position and not conservatism.
(11-02-2017, 03:03 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I also suggest that you read the books I mentioned to Bels above. Your views seem more in line with a nativist/populists position and not conservatism.
What in my views makes you think I am a populist? And I’m not sure wanting an immigration point system and strong enforcement of the laws quite nativist either.
Calvin Coolidge had it right when he stated “New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration.”
(11-02-2017, 09:23 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What in my views makes you think I am a populist? And I’m not sure wanting an immigration point system and strong enforcement of the laws quite nativist either.
Calvin Coolidge had it right when he stated “New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration.”
This is still true today.
Yes, nothing has changed since the 1920's....
That aside we DO limit immigration...just not enough for some who want to keep America the way they remember it. Whether that is a good/true version or not.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-02-2017, 09:24 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I know exactly what they mean. The GOP have a lot of progressives
Which is why we get progressive policies from them. You don’t see the Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul pushing those same progressive policies.
The GOP has a lot of neocons, which do have some progressive tendencies. However, the men you just listed are also a part of the GOP establishment. Both political party establishments are large umbrellas because of there being only two major parties. In addition to that, you really just throw the term "progressive" around for any conservative that doesn't embrace the populist messaging we are seeing with whatever the hell is going on with the right at the moment. But keep in mind that this populism is not a part of conservatism. Never has been.
I know you do focus on interventionist policies and globalism as hallmarks of progressivism, and it is true that for decades the two have been hand-in-hand thanks to neoconservative and neoliberal movements, but globalism has always been a more conservative policy position because free trade is a capitalist dream.
Long story short, you're calling lots of things progressive with a brush that is far too broad, and it is quite possible that you, yourself, are not actually a conservative when you dig into the core ideologies of these things.
(11-02-2017, 09:23 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What in my views makes you think I am a populist? And I’m not sure wanting an immigration point system and strong enforcement of the laws quite nativist either.
Calvin Coolidge had it right when he stated “New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration.”
(11-02-2017, 09:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The GOP has a lot of neocons, which do have some progressive tendencies. However, the men you just listed are also a part of the GOP establishment. Both political party establishments are large umbrellas because of there being only two major parties. In addition to that, you really just throw the term "progressive" around for any conservative that doesn't embrace the populist messaging we are seeing with whatever the hell is going on with the right at the moment. But keep in mind that this populism is not a part of conservatism. Never has been.
I know you do focus on interventionist policies and globalism as hallmarks of progressivism, and it is true that for decades the two have been hand-in-hand thanks to neoconservative and neoliberal movements, but globalism has always been a more conservative policy position because free trade is a capitalist dream.
Long story short, you're calling lots of things progressive with a brush that is far too broad, and it is quite possible that you, yourself, are not actually a conservative when you dig into the core ideologies of these things.
Quote:WASHINGTON — Sam Clovis, a former Trump campaign official who is now linked to special counsel Robert Mueller's federal probe into Russia's interference in the presidential election, is withdrawing his nomination to be the Agriculture Department's chief scientist.
“We respect Mr. Clovis’s decision to withdraw his nomination," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday.
Clovis's decision comes just days after court filings indicate that he may have encouraged President Trump's campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos to set up meetings with Russians for the Trump campaign.
Court document show that an unnammed campaign supervisor encouraged Papadopoulos. The Washington Post reported that the unnamed campaign supervisor was Clovis, who was Trump's national campaign co-chairman.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to FBI officials about his contacts with Russians he believed had links to the Kremlin during the campaign, one of the first prosecutions in Mueller's investigation.
The Associated Press reported on Thursday that Clovis penned a letter to President Trump saying he does “not want to be a distraction or a negative influence" amid “relentless assaults on you and your team."
After the court filings were unsealed on Monday, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, said she had "serious concerns" about Clovis's nomination.
"The emerging information about his role in the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia raises serious concerns," the Michigan Democrat said in a statement to USA TODAY on Tuesday.
"As we consider his nomination, I will be looking into these facts, along with his questionable qualifications and long history of divisive and outrageous statements," said Stabenow, who had already opposed the nomination on the grounds that he lacks the necessary qualifications.
Also on Thursday, The Washington Post reported that Clovis confirmed in an Oct. 17 letter to Stabenow that he had no academic credentials in either science of agriculture.
The position for which Clovis was nominated – the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for research, education and economics — is usually chosen from distinguished scientists with special training or experience in agricultural research, education and economics, The Post reported.
Of course he was unqualified for the job anyway so win-win.
(11-02-2017, 09:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The GOP has a lot of neocons, which do have some progressive tendencies. However, the men you just listed are also a part of the GOP establishment. Both political party establishments are large umbrellas because of there being only two major parties. In addition to that, you really just throw the term "progressive" around for any conservative that doesn't embrace the populist messaging we are seeing with whatever the hell is going on with the right at the moment. But keep in mind that this populism is not a part of conservatism. Never has been.
I know you do focus on interventionist policies and globalism as hallmarks of progressivism, and it is true that for decades the two have been hand-in-hand thanks to neoconservative and neoliberal movements, but globalism has always been a more conservative policy position because free trade is a capitalist dream.
Long story short, you're calling lots of things progressive with a brush that is far too broad, and it is quite possible that you, yourself, are not actually a conservative when you dig into the core ideologies of these things.
Please explain how those three guys are establishment. Also why don’t you define what is GOP establishment.
Intervention and globalism is focused on here because it’s a focus of threads on this forum. We all discuss the News of the day.
We will see new calls for a perjury charge, I am sure, but I doubt it will go anywhere.
So the big "smoking gun" that is Papadopolous amounts to a guy who never did take that trip to Russia, and was repeatedly shot down by senior campaign officials?
But let's run around charging everyone with process crimes related to an investigation that still hasn't demonstrated it was justified in the first place.
We'll see. But I have a suspicion that Papadopolous and the unrelated Manafort/Gates charges are going to be held-up to justify an investigation that otherwise found nothing.
The only real thing being indicted here is Trump's competence, and I don't think we needed a special investigator for that!
(11-03-2017, 06:14 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: We'll see. But I have a suspicion that Papadopolous and the unrelated Manafort/Gates charges are going to be held-up to justify an investigation that otherwise found nothing.
The only real thing being indicted here is Trump's competence, and I don't think we needed a special investigator for that!
Of course possible, but I seriously doubt Flynn will walk away unindicted.
Also, why is "indict" pronounced like "indite". One does not say "predite" either when predicting stuff. That does make no sense, confuses foreigners and I demand urgent action.
(11-03-2017, 06:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: Of course possible, but I seriously doubt Flynn will walk away unindicted.
Also, why is "indict" pronounced like "indite". One does not say "predite" either when predicting stuff. That does make no sense, confuses foreigners and I demand urgent action.
The English language is full of syntax, that has many of us that learned it as our native language, questioning it's reason for being as it is. Honestly, I would say that somewhere down the line, they used to pronounce it differently, with annunciation of the c. However, as people tend to get lazy, speak faster, etc., the c became silent.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(11-03-2017, 06:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: Of course possible, but I seriously doubt Flynn will walk away unindicted.
Possibly. Although Flynn's crime appears to be discussing sanctions as a private citizen....forget the specific statute, but it's only been used a handful of times and I don't believe ever successfully. And more or less a technicality as he was on the transition team, but that's not a small issue as he hadn't been approved by Congress.
Add to that process crimes for lying/omission. But it's curious to me why he wasn't indicted with this group. Presumably, to indict Flynn you would need a new grand jury. While it's possible one has already been convened, it would be somewhat unusual [in this specific case] not to have leaked.
Flynn could be one of the bigger fish they're hoping to leverage the other 3 against. But is he really a bigger fish than Manafort and Gates? Another possibility is the unmasking of Flynn doesn't hold up to judicial scrutiny, and without the wiretaps maybe they have nothing on him...which is why you'd need to try to leverage the other 3 to build a case against him (or, at least, have a more valid justification for unmasking).
(11-03-2017, 06:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The English language is full of syntax, that has many of us that learned it as our native language, questioning it's reason for being as it is. Honestly, I would say that somewhere down the line, they used to pronounce it differently, with annunciation of the c. However, as people tend to get lazy, speak faster, etc., the c became silent.
That makes sense. Then again, the word "predict" presumably is more common than the word "indict" and yet you don't say "predite". If laziness is the cause, that laziness still is strangely selective here.
It really took me several minutes of news watching to get that that word they show in their bars is the same one they used in their talking. When I finally realized, a lightbulb popped up above my head. At least I presume.
(11-03-2017, 07:45 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Possibly. Although Flynn's crime appears to be discussing sanctions as a private citizen....forget the specific statute, but it's only been used a handful of times and I don't believe ever successfully. And more or less a technicality as he was on the transition team, but that's not a small issue as he hadn't been approved by Congress.
Add to that process crimes for lying/omission. But it's curious to me why he wasn't indicted with this group. Presumably, to indict Flynn you would need a new grand jury. While it's possible one has already been convened, it would be somewhat unusual [in this specific case] not to have leaked.
Flynn could be one of the bigger fish they're hoping to leverage the other 3 against. But is he really a bigger fish than Manafort and Gates? Another possibility is the unmasking of Flynn doesn't hold up to judicial scrutiny, and without the wiretaps maybe they have nothing on him...which is why you'd need to try to leverage the other 3 to build a case against him (or, at least, have a more valid justification for unmasking).
Yep, all sound and legit possibilities. I do think there would be enough on Flynn without any possible tapes, that whole being an unregistered foreign agent thing alone. Not disclosing that kind of stuff on a security clearance just has to be a severe offense, I presume without knowing any detail. I guess he's not indicted yet because there's possibly still more to gather, but that's yet just another possibility. Way too early. Which is why I was a bit curious as why would one already speculate that there's probably nothing more.
Personally, I still believe in the end it's about Trump and Russian money laundering. I claim that's not so much some kind of malicious wishful thinking, it is indeed the only overall explanation that makes any sustainable sense to me. If I'm right and Mueller is as good as advertised, eventually Trump will fall and I will look so smart. Truth is of course that in the end I have no idea whatsoever, and why would I. But at least it's now getting really hard to believe that whole investigation is just smoke and mirrors and Manafort et al. are just righteous fellas all wrongfully accused. Doesn't it?
(11-03-2017, 08:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: I do think there would be enough on Flynn without any possible tapes, that whole being an unregistered foreign agent thing alone.
Personally, I still believe in the end it's about Trump and Russian money laundering.
The foreign agent thing is the "highly unusual charge" that's only ever convicted one person. And that's already known, so they could have indicted him for that but for whatever reason chose not to. If that's all they have, it's probably not nearly enough. I believe omitting disclosures on a security clearance is enough to be denied access, but rarely criminal.
Agreed that what probably happens with Trump is the anal business probe gets him on something completely unrelated to Russia.
And depending on how far Mueller is willing to take this, since there's also connections to Clinton and the DNC, Trump might not be the only swamp rat that ends up falling. I think there are more than a few people in Washington, people like Manafort, who are corrupt as hell if you dig deep enough.
(11-03-2017, 10:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And depending on how far Mueller is willing to take this, since there's also connections to Clinton and the DNC, Trump might not be the only swamp rat that ends up falling. I think there are more than a few people in Washington, people like Manafort, who are corrupt as hell if you dig deep enough.
What is the status of limitation on Clinton's "crimes."
). I highly recommend both books whether you are conservative or Liberal. Especially for some one like you that likes to get into the meat of politics. Interesting reads.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
