Jump to content

A vote of no confidence.

Rate this topic


BrianBM

Recommended Posts

Just now, BrianBM said:

It also helps a lot if you fire anyone pursuing a line of questions that you don't want to see answered. It also improves a good deal if your son, son-in-lwa, and campaign manager, having denied vehemently any contacts with Russia, suddenly have to admit having leaped at the opportunity to work with Russian intelligence for help in the election.  

What proof do you offer that this was Russian intelligence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TimS said:

Brian - do you think Congress has wasted more time discussing Obamacare or the various incarnations of the manufactured collusion story? :idea:

 

I think most of Congress is watching the Russian circus with a certain trepidation, wishing it would go away while knowing that it won't, and praying to the minor God of Re-Election Campaigns that they don't get pressed into having to make decisions they don't want to make, one way or the other. The members of the two committees and their staffs are totally preoccupied.  Democrats can't believe their good fortune.  It'll be harder, as time goes on, for the GOP Ostrich Brigade to maintain their heads-down position. Obamacare is something in which the entire Congress has an interest, and wants input, whereas Russia ... please, Heaven, let me not be involved.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gotcow? said:

What proof do you offer that this was Russian intelligence?

You might want to go re-read Donald Jr.'s emails. He certainly hoped to get in bed with the FSB.

I'm sure you dismiss the opinions of American intelligence as fake news.  I don't.  I'm sure you refuse to draw any inferences from Gen. Flynn's peculiar status, as he negotiates with the FBI and both committees about what he'll disclose and where he wants to take the 5th amendment (psssst - this usually implies plea bargaining is in progress), but I do.  I'm sure you would rather not think about Kushner's attempt to set up a secure line, under Russian control, to the Kremlin. And I'm sure that if Donald Trump were to tweet that he's placing American armed forces under Kremlin control, you'd find this totally unobjectionable.  I would object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, JoeyZac said:

No excuse.  The Reps should have had a plan ready to go for years.............

 

50 minutes ago, Gotcow? said:

Why?

Because they've tried to repeal the current plan many times.
They've condemned the current plan.
They ran for election (or reelection) saying they'd fix healthcare.

You do all that, or any of that, then you better damn well have something ready to go (or at least a solid framework), or you're just doing nothing but criticizing.
 

30 minutes ago, dena said:

There is no plan that will knock down medical care inusrance and care prices without the economy taking a hit.

If there was, we would have it already.

I am not demanding that the Reps had a plan that "would" have worked.  That's not fair.

I am demanding that they should have had something implementable that encompassed their ideas, and at least made a reasonable attempt at undoing the parts of the ACA they were critical of.

But to rally against the ACA, lobby for power, actually be entrusted with the power, and then sit there and say "we have nothing?!?" Unforgivable. 

I think people should lose their seats over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BrianBM said:

Mr. Scaramucci tells us that the President isn't convinced the Russians did anything to affect our election.  Clearly, Congress has concluded otherwise, including a substantial majority of the GOP. (You have to wonder what gossip is percolating from the relevant House and Senate committees into Congress; probably more then we're getting.)

There are so many things I could say about this and I don't have the time to real all six pages of comments so I am going to pick on this. 

First, you have to define Russians. Do you mean someone who conducted a intrusion from Russian soil, someone who conducted an intrusion from somewhere else using Russian "technology" or are you talking about he Russian government on an official basis? Details matter. 

Second, as we all know, it was not 17 US intel agencies, it was four, at best. What is common is for one agency to do the investigation and the others to review the work and concur with the findings, but not do their own investigations. Thus, we may have a situation here where only one agency actually did any real investigative work. 

Third, we know that the intel agencies have been using less the declarative words when discussing how confident they were in the veracity of their analysts' conclusions. When it was first released, the report noted that much of the data they based these assessments upon were circumstantial and had more to dow with methods than actual smoking gun traces of IP traffic. Further, of the three major findings late last year, the NSA leader refused to agree with the CIA, FBI and DNI on whether there was actual proof that order for the intrusions came directly from Putin. Hmmmm, one of the agencies did not see the same conclusion as the others, and that would suggest that his agency, the NSA, did not do their own investigation or did not come up with the same results. 

Fourth, Trump's CIA chief last week said " "I am confident that the Russians meddled in this election, as is the entire intelligence community.“ Here we go again, the "entire" IC, by what measure. Worse, what does it mean that he is "confident"? That is not the same as "it is undeniable", "totally positive", "absolutely certain", "there is no question" or any other more strongly worded version. Why? And when Pompeo said "Russians", does he mean the Kremlin or some other group of Russians, possible private hackers?

Lastly, at this point you can be pretty certain that Trump has seen all of the available intel reports, has spoken with the appropriate people and has had HIS choices go through all of that. So if he remains uncertain, could it possibly be because the "evidence" is circumstantial and more a collection of drawn together threads than a whole cloth?

Don't get me wrong, if the Russians fracked with us, they deserve sanctions and more. But to suggest that Trump is still uncertain about his because he is "in debt" to Russians, etc seems to ignore the fact that me might know more than we do at this point. 

BTW, I am tired of those suggesting that Trump would veto this (by pointing out there is a veto proof majority) because this sanctions bill will also include sanctions against Iran and N Korea, it is not jsut about the Russians. 

“No nation in history has survived once its borders were destroyed, once its citizenship was rendered no different from mere residence, and once its neighbors with impunity undermined its sovereignty.”

- Victor Davis Hanson 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrianBM said:

If the President objected to it, because it restricts his options, and signs it only because the margin by which it passes is sufficient to beat a veto, it is indeed as close to a vote of no confidence as our system gets.

How would you characterize it?

That logic only works if the Senate colluded to gather more votes than Trump could veto - otherwise, they voted for it because they want the legislation. 

Your logic is like saying "98% of the Senate voted for legislation that would reduce drunk driving fatalities because the president couldn't veto something 98% voted for". 

Either they colluded...and you assume to know why...or they felt the legislation was good for the US.

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeyZac said:

 

Because they've tried to repeal the current plan many times.
They've condemned the current plan.
They ran for election (or reelection) saying they'd fix healthcare.

You do all that, or any of that, then you better damn well have something ready to go (or at least a solid framework), or you're just doing nothing but criticizing.
 

I am not demanding that the Reps had a plan that "would" have worked.  That's not fair.

I am demanding that they should have had something implementable that encompassed their ideas, and at least made a reasonable attempt at undoing the parts of the ACA they were critical of.

But to rally against the ACA, lobby for power, actually be entrusted with the power, and then sit there and say "we have nothing?!?" Unforgivable. 

I think people should lose their seats over this.

Just accept that the Republicans were being obstructionist dicks and had no plan and that Trump lied to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes legislation is non-partisan and good legislation. Inclusion of Iran and North Korea and this makes it very difficult for anyone to say this was only and all about Russia, and all the nonsense that flows from that misstatement. 

“No nation in history has survived once its borders were destroyed, once its citizenship was rendered no different from mere residence, and once its neighbors with impunity undermined its sovereignty.”

- Victor Davis Hanson 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Close, but not quite.

Democrats: "Our current system sucks. We are in a frying pan.  We are passing ObamaCare and getting out."
Republicans: "Guys, that's not going to work."

Democrats: "Shut up! You suck! We're passing it!  There!"
Republicans: "Uh guys, we are out of the pan, and now we're in the fire."

Democrats: "Well what's your idea then?"
Republicans: "Not sure, but we were better off in the pan."

Democrats: "We were cooking in the pan!"
Republicans: "True, and we needed to do something about that, but now we're in the fire."

Democrats: "So you don't know how to get out of the pan correctly?"
Republicans: "No, we don't, be we do have to get out of this fire right now."

Democrats: "So you don't like our plan, but don't have a better one? OBSTRUCTIONIST!!!!!!"

^^^^^ That is what really happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BrianBM said:

 I'm surprised that Ryan and McConnell couldn't come up with some pork to bribe a few Democrats into agreement. 

You mean like promising them a career outside of the political realm where they would never be welcome again? :idea:

Can you imagine a democrat stepping out alone to support something Trump was pushing? :eek: Some whack job would be looking at him through a scope :scared:

 

 

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gotcow? said:

Sure, the Republicans got shut out ACA negotiations and everything they did after that was a pantload.

To a large extent, but a "pantload," (which is essentially nothing) is still better than putting us in the fire, like the Dems did with the ACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...