***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gry60]

5:35:

Even the journalist doesn't know his stuff. He should have stopped the senator when he said that former officials with clearances get paid for the information they have. It's false since they can't disclose what they know to some random bozo off the street without losing their clearance (and possibly putting themselves in legal jeopardy).

I don't even understand why news outlets keep entertaining these fools. They come on TV to spread their drivel to impressionable ears and the same organizations who complain about being poorly treated by the administration keep giving air time to Trump enablers.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[whywesteppin]

I agree with his reasoning. Separate the words from the man and you have the most pro Black President Elect Ever.

Truly madly deeply.

Libbies are always trying to make a mountain out of a foreskin. Trump may have said something stupid in his dapper youth in 2015. Does that mean we should hold it against him into his old age?

And libbies are always being HYSTERICAL about Trump playing some golf. You know how much money he is putting back into the economy when he goes to golf? Obummer was TERRIBLE for the economy. He REFUSED to go golfing and instead he wanted to stay at home in DC. He kept money to himself and THE ECONOMY SUFFERED.

THE PEOPLE SUFFERED.

I SUFFERED.

 

[RustyShackleford]

@PLVN I'm holding you personally responsible for this.

 

[nomnom]

 

[whywesteppin]

lol at 1) the idiots who can't read who always ask for tweet threads to be turned into single articles, 2) criticizing the book using Abramson's exact tweeting style (is this satire? Kinfolk ), 3) expecting him to drop new info, 4) trying to down play his tweets because the information is already out there? which he always mentions and which is rarely presented as coherently as he does it.

I hate these types of critiques. "oh that's dumb, anyone could've thought of that." yeah **** off. and the fact that all of the info is already in his freely accessible tweets is a good thing.

5) and most insulting of all is grouping him with discredited psycho ***** Louise Mensch.

 

[Kinfolk]

(is this satire? Kinfolk )

We're still trolling with this? lol

Again I came in here a while back not knowing the dynamics of the echo chamber and without context and assumed dude was a troll.

At that point it wasn't apparent that you, were in fact the troll.

Carry on...

 

[RustyShackleford]

Plays track 9 on Scorpion....

 

[Kinfolk]

Plays track 9 on Scorpion....

lol Carry on...

[Insert rant about bad faith arguments and respectability politics and pulling yourself up by the bootstraps from Rust]

 

[whywesteppin]

At that point it wasn't apparent that you, were in fact the troll.

 

[Kinfolk]

 

[RustyShackleford]

[Insert rant about bad faith arguments and respectability politics and pulling yourself up by the bootstraps from Rust]

Plays track 9 on the B-side of Scorpion

 

[Kinfolk]

Plays track 9 on the B-side of Scorpion

Best song on the album.

I just don’t like you bro. No feelings here lol.

*Plays Track 4 on Views*

 

[RustyShackleford]

Da fragility

 

[Kinfolk]

Da fragility

Post a pic of yourself so we can connect a face with the rants.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Since you're so thirsty for a pic here....

Spoiler: FOR THE BEAST!

You're welcome . But don't be sliding up in my PM asking for more heat though.

 

[Kinfolk]

 

[rexanglorum]

-I hardly ever here her called extremely progressive by Dems, just a progressive. Which she is.

Your claim that her progressive bonafides are from her being rooted from her being from San Francisco and not her voting record is ridiculously. You know you are being dishonest here.

By most places that track how left-leaning members of Democrats in Congress are, Pelosi is always in the upper quartile. When you take in consideration all of Congress she is get close or into the top 10-15 percent The Dems as a party is left of the ideological center, and Nacy Pelosi is firmly left of the average Democrat. So unless leftist have rewritten what it means to be progressive (i.e be like Bernie or your not one) then Nancy Pelosi is what would be called a progressive in the last couple decades.

https://voteview.com/parties/100/democratic-party

-I don't even know what to make of the San Fransico rant. Like I'm inclined to agree with the general point but what does have to even do with Pelosi. Ro Khanna is from the bay area too, is a massive progressive darling, but sings the praises of the same tech industry that has wreaked havoc on San Fran. I doubt that any liberal that cares looks at San Fran as a 100% success story. Like it is always gonna come back to grabbing some moral high ground. And how fair is it for Nancy Pelosi to be a punching bag for conditions she didn't bring into being, nor she is seemingly happy about. Pelosi doesn't have to answer for San Fran just like Obama doesn't have to answer for Chicago.

-Hardly is acting like it is a horrible betrayal to not give support to Nancy Pelosi now, but can we stop acting like suckas and throwing an ally under the bus for no good reason; with all due respect but you didn't make one. You claim that Dems get mad when she is attacked from the left, welp, I hardly hear them. It is not her job to foster, grow, and favor a leftist movement in Congress. Like you said, it is people on the ground's job to win seats to build a coalition. The major functions of her job she is good at and the politics are closer to the far left of the party than the far right.

Like how many times does the far left think it is cool to align with the right to push a ****ty talking point. On the Tea Party, Brexit, identity politics talk, Hillary's corruption, Pelosi. Like isn't the whole thing about the left is that they keep it #1HUNNA all the time? So why are they so mealy-mouthed when it comes to rejecting talking points that they know are mainly being peddled by the right, ones that are draped in racism, sexism and straight up lies.

Like damn, they don't need to cheerlead for Pelosi, but those candidates need to stop being useful idiots for the right for the millionth time. There are enough centrist running this year doing that already.

I think we're disagreeing about what constitutes a progressive leader. You are correct that among elected Democrats, Pelosi is out in front. Among activists and organizers, she and Bernie Sanders are way behind.

As far as San Francisco is concerned, you're right she isn't the mayor of that city but she is part of that breed of blue State, coastal, "America is already great" politicians. Within California, we have those types who run around and say that Trump and his supporters are no good because in California "we have Google, we have Facebook, we have Stanford, we have San Francisco, we have Hollywood," as if naming off a bunch of colleges and companies and cities that most Americans cannot afford to move to or attend or work at is some sort of winning politics.

Again, strictly speaking, she hasn't done anything wrong in here role but it still is not a good look for the party of the little guy to draw its leadership from cities that require a blue chip education or a trust fund to live in. I do not know how you cannot see why the optics of a rich person from a rich city might hinder our cause of getting poor people in poor cities to turn out in 2018 and 2020 might be an issue.

You're right that Ro Khanna is sort of a weird political hybrid and strictly speaking, the tech effect has reached every part of the San Francisco Bay Area and many parts of the American west but San Francisco is short hand for this take over of techie rent seekers and San Francisco is the unofficial capital of the west when it comes to lack of affordable housing. For that reason, I'd love to Barbara Lee as the Speaker for the 116th Congress, even though she is representing a District in the thick of this techie onslaught.

Finally, I have to ask, do you believe that a far left candidate or Midwestern candidate's refusal to back Pelosi hinders more centrists or coastal Dem's chances in November? I do not mean this as a rhetorical question. I am trying to model this in my head, I'm not sure if that's what you mean and I really am curious if you believe that is or could be the case.

 

[InTheHallway]

I just had a friend move from DC to LA for work ... He said it is a **** hole ...

 

[rolaholic]

Remember that all this from the natsec community is being said about the supposed 'law and order' President...

 

[dacomeup]

I just had a friend move from DC to LA for work ... He said it is a **** hole ...

Is he a Coal Gang affiliate?

 

[Based Jesus]

Keyser Soze up in this ***

I didn't even notice he'd done this

 

[boris]

I just had a friend move from DC to LA for work ... He said it is a **** hole ...

The Bay Area is where it's at.

 

[Belgium]

Perjury specifically requires the investigators/prosecutors to prove the individual knowingly or willfully lied under a sworn oath concerning matters that are material to the investigation.
The individual has to voluntarily give a statement that he knows to be false at the time of providing the statement.
A false statement is considered 'material' if there is "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed."
Whether or not those false statements were successful in exerting such influence doesn't mattter.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/19/giuliani-truth-todd-trump-788161
Giuliani: ‘Truth isn’t truth’
President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Sunday claimed "truth isn't truth" when trying to explain why the president should not testify for special counsel Robert Mueller for fear of being trapped into a lie that could lead to a perjury charge.

“When you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, well that’s so silly because it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth,” Giuliani told Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday morning.

“Truth is truth,” Todd responded.

“No, no, it isn’t truth,” Giuliani said. “Truth isn’t truth. The President of the United States says, “I didn’t …”

A startled Todd answered: “Truth isn’t truth?”

Giuliani: “No, no, no.”

Todd said: “This is going to become a bad meme.“

Giuliani‘s remark was not the first time he has gone down this road.

Last week on CNN, he rejected Chris Cuomo’s assertion that “facts are not in the eye of the beholder."

"Yes, they are," Giuliani said. "Nowadays they are."

In May, the former New York mayor pursued a similar line of thought in an interview with the Washington Post about the Mueller investigation: “They may have a different version of the truth than we do.”

The statement also recalled Kellyanne Conway’s statement in January 2017 referring to “alternative facts” offered by the White House about crowd sizes at Trump’s inauguration. (In response to Giuliani‘s remarks Sunday, Merriam-Webster tweeted a link to the definition of the word truth in its dictionary.)

Trump's legal team, led by Giuliani, earlier this month replied to special counsel Mueller’s proposal for terms of a possible presidential interview, but wouldn't disclose the details of the counteroffer.

Mueller is investigating whether the Russian government colluded with Trump's 2016 campaign, as well as related issues including possible obstruction of justice by the president.

The president has said he is willing to speak with the special counsel, though that has yet to come about.

Giuliani and others have expressed concerns that Mueller might use a statement by Trump to indict him for perjury based on differences in what the president might say from what others have testified. “They have two pieces of evidence,“ Giuliani said to Todd in explaining that idea. “Trump says I didn’t tell them and the other guy says that he did say it. Which is the truth? Maybe you know because you’re a genius.“

Giuliani also accused Mueller of leaking that White House counsel Don McGahn cooperated with the special counsel.

The New York Times reported Saturday that McGahn spent 30 hours over a three-day period answering questions as part of Mueller's investigation.

Trump tweeted Saturday evening that he allowed McGahn and "all other requested members of the White House staff, to fully cooperate with the special counsel.”

Giuliani told Todd that the special counsel was the only one who could have "leaked" the story.

"I believe this is a desperate special counsel who leaked this to the New York Times, illegally I might add," he said.

When pressed how he knew it was Mueller, Giuliani said those involved on Trump's side would have never done it.

"I didn't leak to the Times and Jay Sekulow didn't leak it to the Times. The president sure as heck didn't. So who could it be?" Giuliani said. "It could be McGahn. McGahn's not doing it and he would have done it a long time ago if he was gonna do it."

Giuliani, who has previously called on the investigation to end in September, said he doesn't believe the White House has any evidence on the president.

"They're down to desperation time," he said. "They have to write a report and they don't have a single bit of evidence."

 

[Nike Jordan]