Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You really think his ouster was unjustified?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/09/why-comey-was-fired-doj-rips-handling-clinton-case-in-ouster.html

Actually I disapproved of his two gaffes last year (his public announcements), and considered it as dangerous as Russian meddling in our election process, even though I opposed Hillary.  He was naive to think that he would survive as director.  However, his current ouster is strictly to slowdown or prevent a serious inquiry into Russian meddling and possible collusion with members of the Trump campaign and admin.  People are going to be going to jail, eventually.  The effort now will be to delay the inevitable, and to get someone on board as director who will soft-pedal the investigation.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On separate network news programs last night (Fox and PBS), two figures who were around during Watergate were interviewed: journalist Brit Hume, who covered the Watergate affair, and John Dean, counsel to Nixon who went to prison for his role in the coverup and who wrote a book about his experiences, an exposé called Blind Ambition (Martin Sheen played him in a movie based on the book). Both said the events of yesterday are nothing like Watergate.

Who is John Oliver?

Edited to add: Never mind. I see from a Google search that John Oliver is a comedian on HBO. Is that where you get all your information about current events?

Edited further to add: I found a transcript of the PBS interview with John Dean. The anchor is Judy Woodruff. Here's a selection from it pertaining to the comparison to Watergate and the "Saturday Night Massacre":
 

Here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/comey-firing-appears-center-handling-clinton-email-case/

They aren't fully like Watergate yet. History never repeats but it does rhyme. There are lots of differences. Nixon was crooked but he was also pretty bright and politically savvy. Trump actually thought the Democrats would praise his firing Comey. The man and reality are not on speaking terms.

I do not get all my news from HBO comedians. I get probably 5% of my news from them but it is the most fun part of the news. John Oliver basically does analyses of the news and makes them fun. You know, like Hannity could do if he had any real idea of the implications of what is going on and had any wit in his ability to deliver it.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You really think his ouster was unjustified?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/09/why-comey-was-fired-doj-rips-handling-clinton-case-in-ouster.html

And I am supposed to believe Trump fired him because he did not handle 'crooked Hillary' correctly after praising Comey for his actions? That is one problem with Trump. To believe him people have to actively try to be stupider then they are and they seem to succeed in this endeavor at an alarming rate.

He promises to ban Muslims - Now it is Not a Muslim ban!

Presidents should be waste so much time playing golf - Golf every weekend is good for the President!

While presidents have lied in the past Trump is the first in which people are justified in assuming as a default that he is lying every time he communicates.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

For me it's a Sophie's Choice.

You love both Pence and Trump like your own children?

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They aren't fully like Watergate yet. History never repeats but it does rhyme. There are lots of differences. Nixon was crooked but he was also pretty bright and politically savvy. Trump actually thought the Democrats would praise his firing Comey. The man and reality are not on speaking terms.

Good line. 

And I agree with most of the rest including seeing Hannity as a bad comedian. 

That said, with all apologies to John Stewart (who is so much better than any of the political comedy shows around now it's not funny) I don't think comedians can excuse the role they take - including Stewart. I found his excuse "I'm a comedian" to fall flat given the place of his show. He is very funny and he was completely right years ago in his critique of cable news. If anything it's gotten worse. But far too many people get their news and views from comedians.

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They aren't fully like Watergate yet. History never repeats but it does rhyme. There are lots of differences. Nixon was crooked but he was also pretty bright and politically savvy. Trump actually thought the Democrats would praise his firing Comey. The man and reality are not on speaking terms.

Democrats in the past have not held Comey in very high esteem. So perhaps Trump cannot fully be blamed for thinking Demos would be at least understanding if not on board with the the director's ouster.

I agree, though, that Trump was naive if he thought the partisans in Congress and the media would not use this as an excuse to pillory Trump.

If, on the other hand, he expected them to react as they did and went ahead with the firing anyway, well, that could be seen as being to his credit that he would have the courage to go ahead and do what needed to be done.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Or it could have nothing to do with courage and instead was about arrogance in that perhaps he just doesn't care what other people think, even when he should.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Democrats in the past have not held Comey in very high esteem. So perhaps Trump cannot fully be blamed for thinking Demos would be at least understanding if not on board with the the director's ouster.

I agree, though, that Trump was naive if he thought the partisans in Congress and the media would not use this as an excuse to pillory Trump.

If, on the other hand, he expected them to react as they did and went ahead with the firing anyway, well, that could be seen as being to his credit that he would have the courage to go ahead and do what needed to be done.

Courage is feasibly the last word I would ascribe to Trump. 

I have a list on my phone of things that trump has done that I like, an unsure of, dislike, and am horrified/disgusted by. It's not a complete list...just as close as I was going to get. The idea was that I would keep it to stay balanced in my critique. Considering the score (like:3, unsure of:6, dislike: 47, horrified: 14) it's not exactly working. But I was unsure of his move to remove Comey because of his pattern of doing things that are self-serving or to placate someone close to him ...not for the "better good." The official explanation doesn't fit his general thought patterns. The one about obfuscating the investigation makes perfect sense.

 

It's not partisanship. It's him. 

 

with luv,

BD

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Democrats in the past have not held Comey in very high esteem. So perhaps Trump cannot fully be blamed for thinking Demos would be at least understanding if not on board with the the director's ouster.

I agree, though, that Trump was naive if he thought the partisans in Congress and the media would not use this as an excuse to pillory Trump.

If, on the other hand, he expected them to react as they did and went ahead with the firing anyway, well, that could be seen as being to his credit that he would have the courage to go ahead and do what needed to be done.

As much as Comey ticked off the Democrats with the email scandal many said they were glad someone willing to go out on a limb like that (even when they disagreed with the decision) was around to stymie Trump. He did not seem partisan and if he was willing to risk career suicide to risk influencing the election he would be probably be willing to do the same if something nefarious was discovered about Trump.

I don't believe Trump expected this backlash. If the sources talking about what is going on in the White House can be trusted at all Trump is ranting at news reports of the Russia probe. He seemed to somehow think if Comey went away so would the investigation. He is a fool. I disagree that Comey needed to be fired. I detest the idea of politicizing that position. Trump had the authority to fire him but precedent was opposed to it. J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI at first and had a very long tenure. He probably kept it because he knew too much and it was dangerous to fire him; most agree we should not repeat his tenure. After that a 10 year term limit was set. Since then only one FBI director has been fired from office before Comey and that guy was guilty of tax exasion, billing the government for expenses that were spurious and/or personal. The investigation of that guy started under H.W. Bush and concluded under Clinton. He was asked to resign, refused, and then he was rightly fired. Comey was not guilty of that kind of offense. The President firing someone investigating himself and/or those closely associated with him sets a dangerous precedent and screams out that this is an echo of Watergate. On a side-note, the way Trump fired him was petty and classless. And, of course, once again Trump failed to tell enough of his staff about it so the White House was unprepared for the press when they came seeking answers. I almost felt bad watching Conway and other Trump surrogates trying to spin the whole thing. That he had just asked for more resources for the investigation and grand jury subpoenas had just gone out doesn't help the idea that Trump was firing Comey because of past offenses. I don't believe the story that Trump was considering firing him since the inauguration except in the general sense that he is quick to remove anyone who does not demonstrate unfailing personal loyalty to him.

All that being said Comey was an idiot. He should not have dragged out the stupid last minute email thing. He should have been more careful and not mischaracterized Abedin's email practices at that time. He should not have broken with tradition and allowed himself to spend so much time in the public eye with Trump once he became President. Traditionally the FBI director kept their distance from the President in the public eye. They are there to inform the President and/or Congress when requested and to quietly watch for malfeasance.

Trump also pushed the investigation out into the open. Already House and Senate Republicans are realizing that Trump is not going to let an investigation alone. Nunes threw away the idea that his committee could handle it. No one except members of the Cult of Trump will trust whoever Trump appoints to replace Comey.

There are a couple of ways this could go forward. The Justice Department could appoint a special counsel. Problem is the President can kill that at will if they are willing to suffer the political blowback. Nixon fired the one investigating him. The Attorney General used to be able to appoint an independent counsel to investigate. This law was created after Watergate but expired during Clinton's term when many were tired of all the investigations launched against him. Congress can investigate through its committees or (more likely) appoint a special committee to look into it. The best method would be a group composed of half members of each party. They could investigate but could only report their findings. They cannot bring criminal charges. They could seek to impeach. A special commission like the one created for 9/11 could be formed of selected people (not congressional members) but that requires a bill to pass through both houses and be signed by the President.

The best bet is probably a congressional inquiry with the reports passed on to the Attorney General in the case of criminal findings. The Republicans desperately need to get this albatross off from around their necks. If it can be put down Trump might stand a chance of getting some influence back. As is, he is heading for lame duck status in his first year as President. If there is nothing to find Trump would be smart to support any investigation from here on out. While some would spin any data to his detriment the majority of Congress will back him if he and his campaign are innocent. If there is something to find Trump is probably doomed and his best bet is to keep obfuscating and try to wait out interest while killing any investigations. If Trump were a smart and savvy operator I would assume he is guilty because his actions only make sense if he is hiding something. Trump is not smart. I can see him whittling away his presidential influence and his mandate trying to shut down an already futile investigation all the way to his own bitter end.

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Courage is feasibly the last word I would ascribe to Trump. 

This. His approach to health care says it all. He has ruined the Republican Party's credibility on the issue. They might have been able to repeal the ACA and gone back to the old system. It would have been a tough pill to swallow but they could have spun it as tough practicality measure and said that government had no business being in health care. Maybe shore up Medicaid and Medicare a bit as a sop and hope. Instead Trump described a magical faerie health care plan that would do the economically impossible and Republicans were trapped trying to produce a unicorn.

Instead of showing courage and providing leadership he cowers and spins fantasies he thinks people will like and somehow hopes someone else will figure out how to make it happen.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Good line. 

And I agree with most of the rest including seeing Hannity as a bad comedian. 

That said, with all apologies to John Stewart (who is so much better than any of the political comedy shows around now it's not funny) I don't think comedians can excuse the role they take - including Stewart. I found his excuse "I'm a comedian" to fall flat given the place of his show. He is very funny and he was completely right years ago in his critique of cable news. If anything it's gotten worse. But far too many people get their news and views from comedians.

I have to admit I find John Oliver enjoyable. He is not as serious as Stewart but he does dig pretty deep in his stories. I used to like Colbert but his new show makes me groan.

John Stewart was right about how the 24 hour news cycle has ruined journalism. He pointed out it works great for 9/11 but there isn't enough news the rest of the time. The need to endlessly rehash and sensationalize means you end up with drivel. Instead of intelligent educated analysts and investigative journalists digging deep into policy and government activities we have talking head pundits from both sides making noise. When something like the ACA or the AHCA or a new tax plan or a new budget proposal comes out we would be better served not listening to what the creators of the bill want us to think about it or what their opponents want us to think about it. Instead analysts should tear it apart and give well-thought out explanations of what this policy will do and how it will affect people, communities, states, etc. That should be the news. People like Sean Hannity and Michael Moore should be ignored as the pathetic shills they are. Ideology should become secondary to practicality. Instead of droning on about principles we need to focus on what does and does not work. Instead of screaming about the evils of socialism and capitalism when faced with a problem we need to decide individually for each situation which of them or what mixture of the two will lead to the best solution.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have to admit I find John Oliver enjoyable. He is not as serious as Stewart but he does dig pretty deep in his stories. I used to like Colbert but his new show makes me groan.

Yeah I'm shocked at how Colbert has fallen since he left his O'Reilly impersonation behind. I'm more mixed on Oliver. I loved him on the Daily Show back in the day but I find him more shrill than even Stewart was the last few of the Bush years. But I'll admit he's head and shoulders above Samantha Bee,

Quote

John Stewart was right about how the 24 hour news cycle has ruined journalism.

Oh he definitely was right about cable news. He was just wrong about his own role.

 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Documentation with context, please.

Repeating myself:

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/ann-coulter-is-having-a-day-on-twitter/

On "white genocide":

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2007-06-06.html

Quote

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

Repeating myself:

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/ann-coulter-is-having-a-day-on-twitter/

On "white genocide":

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2007-06-06.html

She's trolling. They all are. They are loading false meaning into everyday symbols and succeeding at both disarming those who call them out on it and also making it all a funny joke.

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/alt-rights-newest-ploy-trolling-false-symbols/?mbid=social_gplus

If you call them out on it, you're a snowflake cuck infringing on their free speech. If you don't, Gas the Jew jokes and throwing Heil Hitler hand gestures in the White House becomes the new normal.

https://www.google.co.th/search?q=white+house+white+power+symbols&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjri7if_-fTAhXKLI8KHUFgBb0QsAQIMg&biw=1280&bih=703

[halconero]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You do have a point.  After all, Canada is quite a civilized place, and without revolting against King and country.   On the other hand, the American Revolution made it clear to Britannia that some new policies needed to be adopted.  Canada is the direct beneficiary.  No surprise that many refugees are leaving the USA for Canada -- where they are more likely to be welcomed.

Let me wax patriotic for a second, but I think you nailed it. We got home rule (representation and taxation, even self-taxation), a hybrid constitution which mixes something of the American structure with the British Westminster Parliamentary system, and a balance of liberty with "Peace, Order and Good Government."

We have our problems to be sure, but Canada in a sense is the direct beneficiary of the American Revolution.

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, halconero said:

Let me wax patriotic for a second, but I think you nailed it. We got home rule (representation and taxation, even self-taxation), a hybrid constitution which mixes something of the American structure with the British Westminster Parliamentary system, and a balance of liberty with "Peace, Order and Good Government."

We have our problems to be sure, but Canada in a sense is the direct beneficiary of the American Revolution.

Canada is what you get when Britain and the USA have a baby which they leave out to die in the snow and it is raised by wolves. This is not meant to be read as derogatory in any way. 

[halconero]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Canada is what you get when Britain and the USA have a baby which they leave out to die in the snow and it is raised by wolves. This is not meant to be read as derogatory in any way. 

I think you mean raised by beavers.

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Democrats in the past have not held Comey in very high esteem. So perhaps Trump cannot fully be blamed for thinking Demos would be at least understanding if not on board with the the director's ouster.

I agree, though, that Trump was naive if he thought the partisans in Congress and the media would not use this as an excuse to pillory Trump.

If, on the other hand, he expected them to react as they did and went ahead with the firing anyway, well, that could be seen as being to his credit that he would have the courage to go ahead and do what needed to be done.

If you think that Trump fired Comey for going too hard on Hillary I've got a bridge to sell you.

Yep those partisans in congress like Sen. McCain, and Sen. Flake. The Russians are laughing their heads off at you.

I've had to fire people before. I didn't wait over 100 days to do it.

[halconero]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you think that Trump fired Comey for going too hard on Hillary I've got a bridge to sell you.

Yep those partisans in congress like Sen. McCain, and Sen. Flake. The Russians are laughing their heads off at you.

I've had to fire people before. I didn't wait over 100 days to do it.

Not to mention the fact that the original Hillary answer has changed 4 times in the 24 hours.

[thesometimesaint]

31 minutes ago, halconero said:

Not to mention the fact that the original Hillary answer has changed 4 times in the 24 hours.

I guess Hillary is now not the excuse. Trump claims he fired Comey for being a "showboat".

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Repeating myself:

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/ann-coulter-is-having-a-day-on-twitter/

On "white genocide":

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2007-06-06.html

 

 

What Coulter has said may be inflammatory in some quarters, but it does not meet the definition of white supremacy, any more than it is supremacist for members of an ethnic minority to complain about and resist being culturally assimilated into another group. Coulter does have a point in saying that such a thing would likely be labeled by some as cultural genocide, yet few would abide calling it genocide when the goal is to compel a predominant culture to become more ethnically, racially and culturally diverse.

Again, you can disagree with Coulter until the cows come home. But does that justify having her right to be heard cut off?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

The hysterical pundits and politicians who are likening the firing of Comey to the Watergate-era "Saturday Night Massacre" are turning the thing on its head.

Nixon, alarmed with the way the investigation was proceeding, ordered the attorney general to fire the special prosecutor. The AG refused. So Nixon fired the AG and ordered the assistant attorney general to carry out the firing. When the assistant AG refused, Nixon himself fired the assistant AG before firing the special prosecutor.

It is the reverse with Trump, who, in firing Comey, carried out the recommendation of the assistant attorney general, a man with a distinguished career in public service whose appointment was overwhelmingly approved by Congress. And the assistant AG got the blessing of the AG before forwarding the recommendation to POTUS.

Also it is fatuous nonsense to label the firing of Comey as a "constitutional crisis." The law gives POTUS the right to appoint or remove the FBI director. That is analogous to the mayor of a city having the province to hire or fire the chief of police.

 

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The hysterical pundits and politicians who are likening the firing of Comey to the Watergate-era "Saturday Night Massacre" are turning the thing on its head.

Nixon, alarmed with the way the investigation was proceeding, ordered the attorney general to fire the special prosecutor. The AG refused. So Nixon fired the AG and ordered the assistant attorney general to carry out the firing. When the assistant AG refused, Nixon himself fired the assistant AG before firing the special prosecutor.

It is the reverse with Trump, who, in firing Comey, carried out the recommendation of the assistant attorney general, a man with a distinguished career in public service whose appointment was overwhelmingly approved by Congress. And the assistant AG got the blessing of the AG before forwarding the recommendation to POTUS.

Also it is fatuous nonsense to label the firing of Comey as a "constitutional crisis." The law gives POTUS the right to appoint or remove the FBI director. That is analogous to the mayor of a city having the province to hire or fire the chief of police.

 

That is another story that is being bandied about except that White House sources dispute the timing and say Rosenstein was asked to write up a document as to why he would be fired and not just asked his opinion. In fact sources are saying Rosenstein is threatening to quit over having the whole thing blamed on him as the administration tries to scapegoat him.

Nice try but it really does not work.

Again, like Watergate but everyone involved is deeply stupid.

[Rajah Manchou]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, you can disagree with Coulter until the cows come home. But does that justify having her right to be heard cut off?

CFR that Coulter had her right to be heard cut off. She was given a date of May 2 to speak. But she, for whatever reason, insisted she would only speak on the original date which wasn't approved by the University. Her comment was "maybe they will arrest me". But in the end, she cancelled.

However, there has been at least one case where Coulter's "right to be heard" have been cut off.

Ann Coulter excluded from speakers at CPAC

I didn't search too far, so CFR if you know of any others.

 

[halconero]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What Coulter has said may be inflammatory in some quarters, but it does not meet the definition of white supremacy, any more than it is supremacist for members of an ethnic minority to complain about and resist being culturally assimilated into another group. Coulter does have a point in saying that such a thing would likely be labeled by some as cultural genocide, yet few would abide calling it genocide when the goal is to compel a predominant culture to become more ethnically, racially and culturally diverse.

Again, you can disagree with Coulter until the cows come home. But does that justify having her right to be heard cut off?

 

It doesn't, but the notion of culture be associated with skin colour and the genocide of said culture is silly and smacks of eugenicist thinking. Even if culture has a biological link at the genetic level then it still doesn't work as skin colour is a phenotype sitting on a spectrum of various unrelated genes rather than a distinct genotype.

Not to mention that what is "white culture" is arbitrary and changes all the time. The Irish, Italians and Slavic peoples were all considered non-white at point. Does the celebration of St. Patrick's day or the fact that pizza is more widely eaten than blood pudding indicative of white cultural genocide?

To use a specific example, I have a German friend. His great grandparents moved from Swaziland to Germany waaaaay back in the day. He's Lutheran, doesn't speak any African languages but obviously speaks fluent German. He's active with the Christian Democrats, one of the long-term establishment parties. Yet many Germans don't accept as being German simply because of his skin colour. Does he have "white culture" or "black culture?"

Now, a couple clarifications. I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as culture being highly correlated with geography and predominant phenotype from that geography. Nor would I deny that my German friend has different experiences in Germany based on his skin colour than a white person would. I would also note that skin colour can become a hallmark of a particular cultural group, like many African Americans due to the fact that claiming a specific heritage beyond slavery is difficult due to a lack of history beyond coming from the general area of West Africa.

No, what I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a cohesive white culture that's easily identifiable. Azerbaijan and the Faroe Islands are both populated by mostly skinned folks, yet are as distinct culturally from each other as the would be from Nigerians. I'm also saying that if culture is a mix of religion, language, music, norms, taboos, and mores then there's nothing phenotypical with that that a person of African descent couldn't participate in it.

In short, Ann Coulter is a neo-eugenecist poo poo head.