Reply With QuoteI'd be OK with that. I've seen nothing out of him that makes me think he brings anything of value to his job
Jeff, HipKat and Bob,
Gather round children, Uncle Mark is going to give you a treat:
If I were Jeff Sessions, I'd quit, and I would quit tonight.
Although I may agree with Trump's thought, as stupid as I am, I would not have publicly said that.
Never an unspoken thought. UGH!
I'd be OK with that. I've seen nothing out of him that makes me think he brings anything of value to his job
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
Well, in a left-handed way I agree with you. How can Sessions be of value when his boss said his appointment is a mistake? If I were Sessions, his first Senate supporter, and first conservative supporter, I would be pissed; I am pissed for him.Originally Posted by HipKat
That is not to say that Trump's feeling are not justified. He may be correct on the merits, but his public approach sucks.
A frightening situation with each passing day.
So if I understand this, you are OK with the Trump campaign colluding with a hostile government for the purpose of tipping an American election? Is that right?
b.b.
At this point, that's taking a backseat to all his other craziness
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
I don't know how you reached that conclusion Bob.
I hold, if there are legitimate questions concerning law breaking, those concerns are properly answered through a prescribed legal process. Collusion, if it did take place, does not seem to be illegal. However, I am supportive of a remedial reaction to the rather clouded area of collusion legality. IMHO, that legality should be addressed by future, specific, statutory remedy.
Regarding the legal process, that process must necessarily be free of politically-motivated leaks from the DOJ, and its component FBI. In a prefect, objective world, that process would also be free of media manipulation. Just the proper, prescribed exertion of legal machinery, and fair, proper objective reporting, should be present.
Understandably, you seem to concern yourself with this heralded "collusion. " The "collusion" thing is bothersome to me also. But, you seemingly fail to express any discernible concern for the possible abuse of the institutionalized American legal system/process, which necessarily safeguards the Constitutional guarantee(s) of "due process." A rogue legal process is the equivalent of no process at all.
Collusion is undesirable and sleezy; BUT, the abusive leaks of investigatory information, including personal identities, maybe, and in most instances, are illegal. As I see it, such abuse only serves one purpose: to adjudicate the suspicions and charges, publicly, in a philosophically-predisposed media.
We have courts, standards, rules of evidence, judges, and juries to adjudicate any such charges.
I am also saying, any understandable frustrations aside, Trump needs to avoid reckless comments, like the comments concerning Session's recusal. Best for Trump to heed the advise of his lawyers instead of applying his reflexes.
Last edited by mark blazejewski; July 20th, 2017 at 12:53 PM.
Spot on! You get it, Mark, they never will.
We will agree that the ‘tweeting putz' should knock it off and act presidential. But that’s who he is and he does not play favorites with members from Congress, from either political party.
Imagine, the left pisses and moans about Trump not accomplishing anything, yet this is the party of resistance and has contributed nothing to improve matters that concern the best interest and safety of the country.
Yepper!
My problem with Trump, is almost exclusively style, and pr skills.
But, like plumbers, if we want the swamp or sewer drained, we better hold our noses, because neither smell like roses.
How can you blame the media for leaks when Trump and Co. come right out an announce these things?
And who was the party of resistance for the previous 8 years?? You cannot point the finger in one direction without recognizing the symmetry in the opposite. Or did you forget the "Party of No" already??
https://www.bing.com/search?q=republ...16&FORM=CHROMN
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
How can you blame the media for leaks when Trump and Co. come right out an announce these things?
Trump outed Michael Flynn?
Trump announced the Russian "Pee Pee Dossier" before his inaugural?
Perhaps it was Trump who expressed baseless concerns over voter irregularities in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and demanded recounts.
If you keep making those types of observations Hipkat, you are going to become a Pinterest fantasy subject.
Most of the media stories concerning this Russian thing appear to have been exaggerated, if not, just down right false. Trump Jr.'s meeting is a qualified exception. It was stupid, ill-advised, and I still consider an inside set-up to be a strong possibility.
BUT, the meeting, at this point in time, appears to be one other thing: perfectly legal.
And who was the party of resistance for the previous 8 years??
The Democrats: 1969-1977.
The left did not cooperate much with Nixon regarding Vietnam, campus unrest, and his economic policies. Watergate speaks for itself.
The left strangled Ford with the pardon, and habitually sent him indigestible wads of meaningless and costly legislation, just to run-up a phony record of veto arrogance.
The Democrats: 1981-1993.
The left did not do much to help Reagan:
The deployment of Pershing 2 Missiles to West Germany to counter the USSR SS 20s, was, according to the left, going to lead to total nuclear destruction. It did lead to destruction, of the USSR.
They jerked Reagan around on SDI.
They obstructed Reagan's policies to send aid to the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters. (Yea, and stick the Iran-Contra, Boland Amendment crap in your ear.)
They bitched about his hard line against the USSR after the KAL shoot down in 1983.
The pissed and moaned about Grenada.
Blah, Blah.
I would argue that if it were not for March 30, 1981, the Democrats would have jerked him around on the tax cuts too. To be rather indelicate, Reagan just about had to die to get America's economy moving again.
They stuck it Bush 41, who deserved to get whacked over breaking his "no new taxes" pledge, but really got screwed with the politicization of a Special Counsel, Lawrence Walsh, who did quite a number on 41, FIVE DAYS BEFORE the election of the national pervert in 1992.
The Democrats: 2001-2009.
And let's not forget the warm fuzzies that the left embraced 43 with.
Come on, let's not get holier than thou HipKat. It used to be called "the loyal opposition." Both parties resist when they are out of power.
But a charge of "Treason?" A charge punishable by death! Seriously? That is way over the edge.
And please, if you are going to call the Treason garbage payback for the birther crap, remember, it was pro-HRC Democrats that first raised birth legitimacy as an issue against Obama during the 2008 primary battle.
They also raised birth legitimacy as an issue against John McCain in the general election. (He was born in the Panama Canal Zone.) PS, To shut the "Birthers'" mouths, transparency on Obama's part would have been nice. Seems to me the President may have benefited from an issue and controversy that he could have promptly dispelled with finality.
The above observations only dealt with Republican Presidents. It does not include the tactful understanding that left historically applies to Republicans and Conservatives: to Barry Goldwater, William Miller, Spiro Agnew, Robert Dole in 1976, Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan...
Last edited by mark blazejewski; July 20th, 2017 at 07:55 PM.
Hey Mark B.
You sound like a well read, intelligent guy. Let me run a few things by you to see what your thoughts are on the following:
Is the Syrian cease fire still holding? I haven’t read anything in the mainstream liberal media that indicates that it is. Is that another example of collusion with the Russians and one we should be worried about?
Today’s Times and Buffalo News reports are once again centered on Trump’s faux pas’ and his administration supporters’ ineptness and wide-ranging ties with the Russians – to the point of pettiness, as exemplified by Margaret Sullivan’s post today on Sean Spicer wearing a cheap, grey suit at his first briefing. At the same time, little (and I mean little) left-leaning media reporting is given to facts like the stock market hitting all time highs, more people in the workforce than ever before and an unemployment rate note seen in decades.
Trump is the independent SOB he promised to be savaging politicos from both major parties. There appears to be a shadow government in place, now what seems a coup by members of both political parties to undermine his presidency. The hatred is palpable and the means to rid him boarders on hypocrisy and self interest – for the most part all politicos suck and will do anything to protect their political careers. Gee, no presidential candidate ever had a public or private conversation with a former government discussing the election before, right? Regardless of security reasons, the public has a right to know the content, right?
Do you agree on the coup theory? As you seem to be a deplorable like me who voted for Trump, rather than a most corrupt, disingenuous candidate and a message that disenfranchised voters like us, wouldn’t it be nice to see Trump get his ducks in a row and investigate everyone of the SOB’S in office.
Do you agree on the coup theory? As you seem to be a deplorable like me who voted for Trump, rather than a most corrupt, disingenuous candidate and a message that disenfranchised voters like us, wouldn’t it be nice to see Trump get his ducks in a row and investigate everyone of the SOB’S in office.
To quickly and succinctly answer your question, yes I agree with coup theory. Moreover, I do share the "deplorable" label with you, and voted for Trump, and for the reasons that you cite.
Regarding a desire to see Trump getting "his ducks in a row," prior to yesterday, I thought him to be reckless in communication style, and feckless in terms of staffing.
Up until yesterday, I have in fact criticized his "Tweeting," his "never an unspoken thought" approach to press relations, as well as his rather politically crude temperament.
Previously, I considered all of the Russia-collusion news, while "bothersome," to nevertheless be hyperbolic crap, suggestive of a strategic ("soft coup" if you will), reaction to the unlikely election of Donald Trump. Ergo, a superficially hysterical and obsessive effort to marginalize, hamstring, and discredit Trump, to derail his agenda, and to enhance the left's prospects for 2018.
However, this chronology of events collectively changed my perceptions.
(1) The Comey testimony which related his personal desire for a "Special Counsel," raised my antenna.
(2) More concerning to me, was the release of DJT Jr.'s emails regarding the Russian lawyer meeting; a meeting which took place with the approval and participation of Republican Establishment Campaign Manager Paul Mannafort.
The Mannafort-Republican establishment connection suggests this coup does not operationally function under the exclusive control of the Democrat Party. Rather, it appears to be the collective efforts of some Republican establishment figures, and of other pro-New World Order, Globalist entities and elites.
Perhaps it is this rather contradictory political-journalistic-media-social-economic alliance, which makes the instant circumstances so highly dangerous to our traditional political system, and therefore, may account for what heretofore, has been viewed by many as rather "bizarre" Presidential behavior.
(3) The the Trump "Red Line" admonishment to Mueller: stay focused on "Russia collusion" and out of Trump Enterprises. The "Red Line" reference struck me weird.
The leak the next day, the revelation that Mueller was expanding his investigation into Trump's business dealings explained the "Red Line" reference. Mueller was going beyond the scope of Russia collusion mandate, and was now looking for something, anything, to hang on Trump. The proverbial "witch-hunt" or "fishing expedition."
(4) Enter the Sessions remark. I initially viewed the Sessions "woodshed moment" as troubling. In my world, it was the functional emasculation of a loyal supporter and competent servant. I simply could not understand how Sessions could remain in office, without the full confidence of the President of the United States.
(5) The Spicer resignation and the rise of Anthony Scaramucci. Alas, as they used to say,: CLICK! My "Buddha Moment."
As when Michael Corleone discharged Tom Hagen, Trump is gearing up to meet this coup head-on, and is in search of a "wartime consigliere."
President Trump knows what has to be done, and foresees that things may get rough.
The President is deploying his forces to destroy the coup. That includes distancing himself from Sesssions, so that, in the future, Sessions may more freely deal a retaliatory strike against Hillary Clinton, and surrounding himself with articulate loyalists to present his public case.
For the skeptical Mr. C., I submit that there have been coups, or attempted coups, in the past. Consider:
(1) In the hours, days, and weeks following the Lincoln assassination, the United States was not governed by a duly installed President of the United States, but by a rather rogue Secretary of War who did not share the philosophy, or the political party affiliation of the President. Perhaps not so coincidentally, that very same President was impeached for negatively impacting that very same Secretary of War.
(2) The Kennedy administration faced strong resistance from some of the very same forces that President Trump confronts today. The Bay of Pigs resulted in a house cleaning of high-ranking intelligence officials and paved the way for a Kennedy plan "to smash the CIA to smithereens."
Something happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, and one can draw their own conclusion(s).
Speculation aside, a direct outgrowth of the Kennedy "assassination" was the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Those Constitutional words, ratified in 1967, legally empower those who would make a coup, and make their job cleaner, and easier, to accomplish:
"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive branch or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
Define "unable to discharge?"
(1) It could mean that the President, while still alive, has his brains are lying on Elm Street in Dallas.
(2) It could mean the President has had a stroke and is dying.
(3) It could mean that the President has flipped his cork.
(4) Or, it could mean that the Vice President and "others" have decided, for whatever reason, that the President has got to go.
Simply put, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment renders legality and ease to the execution of a coup.
In fact, former President Eisenhower observed that the Twenty-Fifth Amendment was unnecessary because Article II of the Constitution spoke directly to succession.
"Clause 6: Vacancy and disability.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."
Using the Kennedy assassination as an example, this Eisenhower paraphrase observed and held:
"Lyndon Johnson did not need to immediately take the oath. He took it on Inauguration Day. Johnson was President before President Kennedy died; the minute the bullet hit him in the head. He could have signed legislation right then and there."
Oddly, within six and a half years of its ratification, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment met it first challenge confronting an administration bearing traits not dissimilar to those of the Trump Presidency.
Personally, I believe that there were STRONG elements suggestive of a coup present in the Agnew-Nixon-Watergate two step.
I also believe that there were suggestive elements of a coup in the early hours following the Reagan assassination attempt in 1981. (Bear in mind, press reports notwithstanding, Reagan was near death that day.)
Yes, I believe there is an ongoing coup, and Trump is trying to deal with it.
Last edited by mark blazejewski; July 22nd, 2017 at 05:43 PM.
[QUOTE=Lee Chowaniec;1735231]Hey Mark B.
Not only has the Syrian cease-fire held, but Trump's "collusive" relationship with the Russians, seems to have dissuaded Assad from any more chemical weapons attacks. Of course, the media has almost totally ignored these facts. The press and media are more consumed with contriving a cloak and dagger narrative for Trump's so-called "secret" meeting(s) with Putin at the G-20, than the concrete, but unreported successes of his private diplomacy.Is the Syrian cease fire still holding? I haven’t read anything in the mainstream liberal media that indicates that it is. Is that another example of collusion with the Russians and one we should be worried about?
Regarding the "secret" Trump-Putin meeting, why did FDR lie to the American people on the Night of June 5, 1944, when he spoke on live radio of the liberation of Western Europe in hypothetical terms, when he knew full well that the landing craft where actively heading towards the French invasion beaches, as he was speaking? Such deceptive secrecy, the Traitor! He knew those paratroopers were already fighting and dying in Normandy, and deliberately did not tell the American people.
Why wasn't Truman's Atomic Bomb revealing conversation with Stalin at Postdam publicly revealed. Treasonous behavior, but to err is Truman as they used to say.
Sarcasm aside, consider if FDR had not "colluded" secretly with Stalin to give priority to Russia in Lend-Lease? Consider if Kennedy had not back-channeled Khrushchev in 1962?
What does the press think that Presidents do for a living, and, why don't they know that secrecy is a part of the job? IDIOTS!
Mr. C., the media are sycophants for the left, and gossip columnist for the right.
Last edited by mark blazejewski; July 22nd, 2017 at 06:43 PM.
[oint ofMargaret Sullivan, like so many in the left-wing media, may consider herself to be a fashion expert.pettiness, as exemplified by Margaret Sullivan’s post today on Sean Spicer wearing a cheap, grey suit at his first briefing.
Who can forget David Brooks' obsession with the crease in Obama's pants? Or the media's pleadings with Obama to remove his BlackBerry from his belt, lest it reduce the perfect Presidential appearance.
This fashion obsession makes me long for the Clinton years, when wearing pants in the Oval Office was not an option.
One may also ask why Trump's Polish policy, which has had the effect of strengthening of Poland to the reduction of the Russian threat, has gone under-reported. That policy certainly can not thrill the rather imperialistic Putin.
Just a rather quizzical observation.
There are currently 36 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 36 guests)
Posting Permissions
