GB54;842840291 said:

---

Democrats need to connect more with working class witches

---

They tried.

Cal88;842841187 said:

---

They tried.

---

What's even more amazing is that her focus group said this was the best of three pictures

Cause she is what ryhmes witch??

I have to admit that some of the alleged "questioning" by Republican congressmen of John Brennan today at the Congressional Russia Hearings were some of the most moving political speeches I have heard since Senator Pat Geary's during Michael Corleone's appearance before the Senate Sub Committee.

[video][/video]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6373[/ATTACH]

Cal88;842841184 said:

---

I'm not an apologist for Trump

---

. . . he says while posting the longest Trump apologia in this thread.

Sure you're not.

sycasey;842841207 said:

---

. . . he says while posting the longest Trump apologia in this thread.

Sure you're not.

---

ooooh burn. good one.

BearNIt;842841170 said:

---

The only way Trump survives this is if republicans ignore the findings, bury their heads, and vote en bloc, which would be political suicide. Every day there is a new revelation which confirms Trump's inability or incompetence is govern as POTUS.

---

I'm still waiting for these "findings." They may or may not exist. Many feel that the existence of an investigation at all is proof of guilt.

oski003;842841213 said:

---

I'm still waiting for these "findings." They may or may not exist. Many feel that the existence of an investigation at all is proof of guilt.

---

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

oski003;842841213 said:

---

I'm still waiting for these "findings." They may or may not exist. Many feel that the existence of an investigation at all is proof of guilt.

---

I'm still waiting for a meaningful factual conflict between Trump and the media/leakers/unnamed sources/any other human outside of Trump's orbit (take your pick) to be resolved in favor of Trump. How many times does he have to con you before you acknowledge he has zero credibility? Lately we don't even need third parties to do the work because Trump comes right out and confirms facts that he and/or his enablers previously characterized as fake news. Alternative facts indeed.

As I mentioned in my missive above, I feel pretty comfortable that the reports about the Comey memos, the summary of the Russia oval office meeting and the requests Trump made to Coats/Rogers will all be confirmed by Mueller and that likely some of that information will be provided directly to the public. If you would like to go on record saying that you don't believe any of those things to be true, please feel free to do so. Happy to come back and revisit after the conclusion of the investigation.

sycasey;842841207 said:

---

. . . he says while posting the longest Trump apologia in this thread.

Sure you're not.

---

Anything short of a "Trump literally Hitler" line will come across to as Trump apologia. So far he's performed slightly below my expectations, which weren't that high to start with.

Quick asesessment to date:

Plus column:
-disabled the TPP
-started moving towards a national industrial policy
-will probably scrap Paris Agreement and other drastic carbon schemes that will not affect climate but instead hamper the global economy
-has avoided military escalation in Syria, so far at least (knock on wood)
-Tillerson is a good SoS, not an ideological neocon

Minus column:
-nepostism; Kushner and Ivanka should be selling clothes and real estate instead of hanging out at the WH.
-detente with Russia/disengagement in the ME and EE/[U]Peace dividend[/U] not quite implemented, though the insane domestic political turmoil around this issue is partially to blame
-increased military budget
-Is falling short on many libertarian/individual rights issues like civil asset forfeiture, electronic privacy rights, net neutrality etc.


I'm not a Trump cheerleader, but IMHO Clinton would have been a disaster across the board, with no upside whatsoever. Ron Paul would be the recent candidate I would most agree with. Sanders seemed to be a good character with some flaws to start with, but was revealed to be a useless DNC cog/hack.

Here is Ron Paul's take on the "Russiagate" circus:

[video=youtube;1fNXMrHl0js][/video]

Cal88;842841184 said:

---

You're holding Trump accountable for Deutsche Bank financial wrongdoings because he happened to deal with that bank, a giant financial group with $2 trillion in assets? That would be like saying a big client of Wells Fargo is guilty by association for their fake account scandal.

Your interpretation of Trump vs "Science" is equally misguided.

---

Please give me one example of well respected scientist leading EPA or DoE? I though Trump being anti-science is a fact.

Unit2Sucks;842841221 said:

---

I'm still waiting for a meaningful factual conflict between Trump and the media/leakers/unnamed sources/any other human outside of Trump's orbit (take your pick) to be resolved in favor of Trump. How many times does he have to con you before you acknowledge he has zero credibility? Lately we don't even need third parties to do the work because Trump comes right out and confirms facts that he and/or his enablers previously characterized as fake news. Alternative facts indeed.

As I mentioned in my missive above, I feel pretty comfortable that the reports about the Comey memos, the summary of the Russia oval office meeting and the requests Trump made to Coats/Rogers will all be confirmed by Mueller and that likely some of that information will be provided directly to the public. If you would like to go on record saying that you don't believe any of those things to be true, please feel free to do so. Happy to come back and revisit after the conclusion of the investigation.

---

He's trying to run a country. The media blasts him constantly with provocative snippets. He walks into landmines, which makes this worse. It reminds me of a northerner who walks into a room full of old southern families, thinks the social scene is ridiculous, and ignores the social conventions. That person then just gets eaten alive with gossip. He very well could be asking for the FBI to help validate the fact that he has zero part in the Russian collusion. However, they cannot comment on an active investigation, despite the Comey Clinton commentary, and refuse to help him. The media eats this up because it brings ratings. You eat this up because it is what you want to believe. Trump may be guilty. However, I feel that the pitchforks were up before he stepped into office.

The media mocked him for the size of his inauguration, even though it was raining. He lashed out and made a ridiculous claim that the crowd was bigger than Obama's. The media said his immigration ban was targeted at countries he did not do business with, and he purposely omitted those he did business with. The truth, which was underreported, was that Obama's administration picked these "targeted" countries as countries that the U.S. could not trust to be able to vet refugees. It was a mirror of that list.

I did not vote for Trump. Most of my friends are liberals, and I did not want to lie or admit I voted for Trump. In fact, I have a friend who told me they could no longer associate with me if I voted for Trump. By all means, Trump seems to be out of place and probably should not be president. I feel bad for how poorly the media treats him. I think I have a thing for rooting for the underdog. I would back Bernie as a person, and I also liked Kasich. However, as a small-medium size business owner, Bernie's policies are scary. Payroll and benefits, which have gone up drastically in the last 5 years, are threatening my business. As for Kasich, he is too conservative.

Trump's a corporate Republican, a juiced up, more corrupt and less competent and intelligent version of Reagan. He never was a populist but the idea that he is some kind of fascist and we are all living in Weimar Germany is ignorant and laughable. Hitler:" Hey, Goebbels, let's go to the wailing wall for a picture."

What we will see; tax cuts and gutting of social services and deficits.

Symbolic gestures to cut the government but with Medicare and Social Security intact

A foreign policy ( unfortunately) more like Clinton who never met a war she didn't like and a tilt away from Iran engagement to the Israeli- Saudi gangsters

My guess: no wall, the Paris agreement stays, the Iran deal is scrapped.

He's worse than a corporate democrat but everything he'll do is reversible just like most things Obama did. Repealing Obamacare otoh would be a political disaster for the Republicans.

oski003;842841213 said:

---

I'm still waiting for these "findings." They may or may not exist. Many feel that the existence of an investigation at all is proof of guilt.

---

The more we learn, the smaller the possibility that Trump (or people close to him on the campaign) were just innocent bystanders. But I will acknowledge that nothing has been conclusively proven yet.

BearChemist;842841225 said:

---

Please give me one example of well respected scientist leading EPA or DoE? I though Trump being anti-science is a fact.

---

Trump replaced social anthropologist/policy planner Gina McCarthy at the head of the EPA with lawyer Scott Pruitt.

Rick Perry as head of the DoE is a lightweight, granted, but you have Tillerson (UT Civil Engineer and Exxon CEO) way up in his administration.

This being said, the concept of being pro or anti-science is a reductive, politically biased notion. As is the notion that the science wasn't politicized under Obama:

Quote:

---

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data."

Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table.”

---

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/25/former-obama-official-bureaucrats-manipulate-climate-stats-to-influence-policy/

Call88 - bonus points for misdirection. If you're not a Trump apologist, I can't wait til an apologist comes along.

No one claimed there were no STEM majors in Trump's administration, even "way up". You give Trump credit for Tillerson's undergrad degree but don't acknowledge McCarthy has an MS in engineering. I'm not sure how Tillerson's undergrad degree shows any commitment to science but I do think the fact that the Trump administration is suppressing the display of climate change science on the EPA website, etc. is telling. Pruitt was not appointed to the EPA in order to ensure that the EPA is science-driven. And let's not forget that Trump claimed the concept of global warming was created by and for (his good friends) the Chinese to make US manufacturing less competitive which is both non-sensical and unsupported.

Now let's talk about the Department of Energy. The last 3 heads of the DoE were PhDs from Cal, Furd, MIT (one a nobel prize winner from Cal - Go Bears!). According to Trump, Rick Perry started wearing glasses to appear smart. And I can't talk about Rick Perry's intelligence without reminding everyone he got a D in Meats.

So I think it's fair to question Trump's hostility to science and your defense is not credible.

Cal88;842841244 said:

---

Trump replaced social anthropologist/policy planner Gina McCarthy at the head of the EPA with lawyer Scott Pruitt.

Rick Perry as head of the DoE is a lightweight, granted, but you have Tillerson (UT Civil Engineer and Exxon CEO) way up in his administration.

This being said, the concept of being pro or anti-science is a reductive, politically biased notion.

---

Cal88;842841223 said:

---

-has avoided military escalation in Syria, so far at least (knock on wood)
-Tillerson is a good SoS, not an ideological neocon

Minus column:
-detente with Russia/disengagement in the ME and EE/[U]Peace dividend[/U] not quite implemented, though the insane domestic political turmoil around this issue is partially to blame

---

Did you receive Russia's Order of Friendship like Tillerson Did? If not, you need a better agent.

I edited down your comments above for brevity:
Syria - we have escalated in Syria. We are killing more civilians now and we have also now bombed both sides in the Civil War under Trump. We have also escalated in Yemen and Afghanistan
Tillerson- is the swamp and Putin loves him.
Detente with Russia - very good suggestion, comrade. I guess you don't care about foreign powers meddling in America's elections.

Unit2Sucks;842841247 said:

---

Call88 - bonus points for misdirection. If you're not a Trump apologist, I can't wait til an apologist comes along.

No one claimed there were no STEM majors in Trump's administration, even "way up". You give Trump credit for Tillerson's undergrad degree but don't acknowledge McCarthy has an MS in engineering. I'm not sure how Tillerson's undergrad degree shows any commitment to science but I do think the fact that the Trump administration is suppressing the display of climate change science on the EPA website, etc. is telling. Pruitt was not appointed to the EPA in order to ensure that the EPA is science-driven. And let's not forget that Trump claimed the concept of global warming was created by and for (his good friends) the Chinese to make US manufacturing less competitive which is both non-sensical and unsupported.

Now let's talk about the Department of Energy. The last 3 heads of the DoE were PhDs from Cal, Furd, MIT (one a nobel prize winner from Cal - Go Bears!). According to Trump, Rick Perry started wearing glasses to appear smart. And I can't talk about Rick Perry's intelligence without reminding everyone he got a D in Meats.

So I think it's fair to question Trump's hostility to science and your defense is not credible.

---

McCarthy has a masters degree in "Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy" from Tufts. Technically that is an MS in Engineering, but it's a glorified MPPM degree, not a real engineering masters degree. [URL="https://engineering.tufts.edu/cee/graduate/msEnvironHealth.htm"]Here is the curriculum [U](link)[/U][/URL]. It's the kind of diploma non-STEM grads get to bolster their scientific credentials without having to take any courses in thermodynamics or mechanics.

You might want to scroll back one page and review the rest of your post which was finished while I was adding a pretty damning proof of EPA/DoE political manipulation of science under Obama.

There's no denying that someone like Chu is among the brightest scientists around, yet his opinions on climate change are primarily a reflection of his political convictions and policy objectives, and also because he's not a climate scientist. He's a "team player" in terms of the global warming line. He's argued that California was in a state of permanent drought because of CO2 emissions:

“I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he said. “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.”

I guess even a Cal Nobel Prize can be wrong.

Chu has also [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_omz0XIHEX0"]argued that a unilateral reduction in US CO2 emissions would have a significant effect on future climate, despite scientific data pointing to the contrary [U](link)[/U][/URL].

Trump is absolutely right on the impact of treaties like the Paris accord on US manufacturing competitiveness, relative to China and other nations. Self-imposed carbon taxes on US manufacturers would be the final blow.

The architects of the global warming crisis management were people like IPCC founder Maurice Strong, whose oligarch backers he represents (Rockefellers, Demarais,...) were deeply invested in China going back to the early 1990s, they were behind the push to set up China as a global manufacturing center, and made tens of billions from investments like their stake in Citic.

There is quite a bit more to this subject than the reductive stances you would see in the recent "pro-science" protest march.

I'm not going to spend the time to argue with you about climate change science. There is zero evidence to support the fact that Trump's agenda is science driven. Let's be honest there is very little evidence to support that Trump even has a policy agenda let alone would understand what drives it. What is clear is that he has done very little to show any indication of a faith in science and has done plenty to show the opposite.

As for McCarthy's degree, you are splitting hairs and of course have no defense for Pruitt or Perry. I haven't seen McCarthy's transcript so I don't know whether the one year degree curriculum you cited is similar to the degree she received 36 years ago. For all I know she got a D in Meats like Perry. Maybe you can use that line for your next misinformation campaign.

Unit2Sucks;842841272 said:

---

As for McCarthy's degree, you are splitting hairs and of course have no defense for Pruitt or Perry. I haven't seen McCarthy's transcript so I don't know whether the one year degree curriculum you cited is similar to the degree she received 36 years ago. For all I know she got a D in Meats like Perry. Maybe you can use that line for your next misinformation campaign.

---

My point about her degree is valid. You can't get a real engineering masters degree as a social anthropology undergrad. Not today, not 36 years ago, and not 36 years from now. It's pretty much a policy masters degree for management in the technical realm. Very minor point, but you called me on it, so there you go.

Quote:

---

There is zero evidence to support the fact that Trump's agenda is science driven. Let's be honest there is very little evidence to support that Trump even has a policy agenda let alone would understand what drives it. What is clear is that he has done very little to show any indication of a faith in science and has done plenty to show the opposite.

---

There is evidence that Obama's agenda wasn't quite driven by science, and that his policy makers resorted to manipulating data to further their agendas. Here it is again in case you've missed it:

Quote:

---

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama's administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

"What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I'd say, misleading, sometimes just wrong," Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data."

Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to "tell it like it is. You're a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table."

---

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/25/former-obama-official-bureaucrats-manipulate-climate-stats-to-influence-policy/

A fraudulent science agenda isn't a science-driven agenda.

"Faith in science" implies a certain kind of dogmatic rigidity. I used to believe in CAGW, until I've done a lot of research on the subject, which I was compelled to do having professional experience in the field of green development along with a (real) engineering background. You have to be able to challenge your own system of beliefs and examine the evidence with an open mind. Easier said than done...

Trump's agenda is driven by the well-being of US industry, the Rust Belt put him in the WH. Obama's Wall Street driven agenda ignored the industrial heartland, Trump is working to reverse that. I think a national industrial policy is a good thing and not just for the midwest, but for the whole country.

I heard Sean Spicer is on his way out, have you considered filling in? I feel you would be a terrific Trump WH press secretary.

dajo9;842841263 said:

---

Did you receive Russia's Order of Friendship like Tillerson Did? If not, you need a better agent.

---

Honestly, at this point I don't think Cal88 is any kind of Russian agent. I think he's just reflexively anti-establishment. As in, whatever the established common opinion is, he reflexively wants to be against it.

Taking this attitude to its unfortunate extreme leads to some nutty conspiracy theories, and also the very attitude that helped elect Trump: "Everything in Washington sucks, so let's try this guy who really knows nothing about governing!"

I suspect we have largely reached the end of this kind of thinking, and the constant scandal and incompetence of the Trump Era will create a backlash in a voting public that starts to see more value experience and expertise.

sycasey;842841287 said:

---

Honestly, at this point I don't think Cal88 is any kind of Russian agent. I think he's just reflexively anti-establishment. As in, whatever the established common opinion is, he reflexively wants to be against it.

Taking this attitude to its unfortunate extreme leads to some nutty conspiracy theories, and also the very attitude that helped elect Trump: "Everything in Washington sucks, so let's try this guy who really knows nothing about governing!"

I suspect we have largely reached the end of this kind of thinking, and the constant scandal and incompetence of the Trump Era will create a backlash in a voting public that starts to see more value experience and expertise.

---

I don't think he's a formal Russian agent. I just don't think he supports America and he is wittingly or unwittingly on board spreading propaganda that originates in Russia because he wants to see America withdraw from the world stage.

Oh please climate change denier darling Steve Noonin? Never heard of him so had to look him up. Couldn't find a quote from Joe Bastardi to squeeze in? You guys will lap up anything anyone says that supports your preordained position so like moths to a flame you now think Steve Noonin is the ultimate arbiter but if he were on the other side you would criticize him as a theoretical physicist who is out of his element. Even if what he says is true and that there were some misstatements or even outright fabrication, it doesn't negate the point that scientific consensus is that climate change is real and problematic. The new administration prefers to stick its head in the sand and shout lalala and you seem all too happy to go along with it.

I would appreciate it if you deniers would just be honest and say you don't care what happens to the planet but want to maximize your income/wealth in the short term. At least that would be an honestly held position that people could debate.

Climate change denial is just another gift from the baby boomers (who will go down in history as the "Worst Generation") like our $20T in government debt accrued in order to fatten their retirement accounts and social security benefits while guaranteeing the music will stop playing once their generation has moved on. By the way that is not a knock on individual boomers, but the aggregate impact is undeniable.

sycasey;842841287 said:

---

Honestly, at this point I don't think Cal88 is any kind of Russian agent. I think he's just reflexively anti-establishment. As in, whatever the established common opinion is, he reflexively wants to be against it.

Taking this attitude to its unfortunate extreme leads to some nutty conspiracy theories, and also the very attitude that helped elect Trump: "Everything in Washington sucks, so let's try this guy who really knows nothing about governing!"

I suspect we have largely reached the end of this kind of thinking, and the constant scandal and incompetence of the Trump Era will create a backlash in a voting public that starts to see more value experience and expertise.

---

"Reflexive" is the operative word here, when it comes to Trump and the current political climate, the debate doesn't take place on a rational plane.

The choice in the last elections was between a seasoned yet deeply unethical politician who has had a lot of experience implementing bad policies, and a flawed outsider. So is this perspective really "reflexively anti-establishment"? Does this world view really amount to belief in "nutty conspiracy theories"?

Unit2Sucks;842841329 said:

---

Oh please climate change denier darling Steve Noonin? Never heard of him so had to look him up. Couldn't find a quote from Joe Bastardi to squeeze in? You guys will lap up anything anyone says that supports your preordained position so like moths to a flame you now think Steve Noonin is the ultimate arbiter but if he were on the other side you would criticize him as a theoretical physicist who is out of his element. Even if what he says is true and that there were some misstatements or even outright fabrication, it doesn't negate the point that scientific consensus is that climate change is real and problematic. The new administration prefers to stick its head in the sand and shout lalala and you seem all too happy to go along with it.

I would appreciate it if you deniers would just be honest and say you don't care what happens to the planet but want to maximize your income/wealth in the short term. At least that would be an honestly held position that people could debate.

Climate change denial is just another gift from the baby boomers (who will go down in history as the "Worst Generation") like our $20T in government debt accrued in order to fatten their retirement accounts and social security benefits while guaranteeing the music will stop playing once their generation has moved on. By the way that is not a knock on individual boomers, but the aggregate impact is undeniable.

---

I'm not familiar with Steve Noonin, but there is enough of a core group of eminently qualified scientists, people like Judith Curry (who used to head the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech) to refute the notion that there is a unanimous consensus among the scientific community about human-generated CO2 leading to runaway global warming.

Granted, they're in the minority, but the commonly repeated mantra of 97% consensus is a false narrative, as is the notion that those scientific dissenters are in the pocket of the oil industry. In fact, going against the prevailing narrative is the more hazardous career path for researchers. Curry was bullied and pushed out from Georgia Tech because of her scientific stance.

I guess we can have this debate at a later stage, at the very least you will be exposed to a body of scientific information you haven't seen before.

And if you're worried about servicing the government debt, you might want to look into the new tax burdens added through carbon taxes.

(Edit: I guess you were referring to Steven Koonin, the DoE insider who has blown the whistle on his agency manipulating climate data, not Noonin.)

Now comes the story that Trump in a call to Duterte, the Philippine strong man, may have disclosed to Duterte the location of two nuclear submarines that the United States has stationed off the coast of North Korea. By the way, Duterte was just in Moscow within the last week. If this is true, Trump's stupidity knows no bounds. Nobody could be that dumb? Is it incompetence or stupidity?

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nuclear-submarine-north-korea-duterte-philippines-2017-5

dajo9;842841327 said:

---

I don't think he's a formal Russian agent. I just don't think he supports America and he is wittingly or unwittingly on board spreading propaganda that originates in Russia because he wants to see America withdraw from the world stage.

---

Right, because if you are not in favor of the US policy overthrowing democratically elected regimes, [URL="https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled"][U]like the Clinton-led overthrow of the Honduras Zelaya government[/U][/URL], you're a Russian propagandist.

Quote:

---

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *

---

dajo9;842841327 said:

---

I don't think he's a formal Russian agent. I just don't think he supports America and he is wittingly or unwittingly on board spreading propaganda that originates in Russia because he wants to see America withdraw from the world stage.

---

Clinton sucks- that's an American view

Cal88;842841335 said:

---

The choice in the last elections was between a seasoned yet deeply unethical politician who has had a lot of experience implementing bad policies, and a flawed outsider. So is this perspective really "reflexively anti-establishment"? Does this world view really amount to belief in "nutty conspiracy theories"?

---

I'm not going to re-litigate the last election, but your continued support of Trump in the face of widely-available evidence indicates that you are still trying to Devil's Advocate your way out of any sane political argument.

Unit2Sucks;842841329 said:

---

Climate change denial is just another gift from the baby boomers (who will go down in history as the "Worst Generation")

---

Now now now, they haven't started a Civil War yet, so there's that.

BearNIt;842841349 said:

---

Is it incompetence or stupidity?

---

I don't believe those are mutually exclusive. Trump has no impulse control, isn't that smart and has exceedingly poor judgment. None of this should surprise anyone and in many ways these are the very same qualities that made him so attractive to his base. There was an article in politico about it recently with some great examples but he's creating new examples on a weekly (if not daily) basis.

I mentioned this quite a bit before the election, but I never had any doubt that Trump would divulge classified information publicly. I didn't know to what extent and how early and often he would do so, but I'm not surprised by anything he's disclosed. I predict at some point he will tweet classified information. Of course his sorrynotsorry defenders will point out that he can declassify any information he chooses, but that isn't what's going on. With all the tough talk about withholding classified information from Clinton (I think Paul Ryan suggested this), Trump is by far the biggest disclosure risk we've ever had. And this isn't some theoretical risk - it is readily apparent that Trump will continue to do so as long as he is in possession of classified information.

Unit2Sucks;842841385 said:

---

I don't believe those are mutually exclusive. Trump has no impulse control, isn't that smart and has exceedingly poor judgment. None of this should surprise anyone and in many ways these are the very same qualities that made him so attractive to his base. There was an article in politico about it recently with some great examples but he's creating new examples on a weekly (if not daily) basis.

I mentioned this quite a bit before the election, but I never had any doubt that Trump would divulge classified information publicly. I didn't know to what extent and how early and often he would do so, but I'm not surprised by anything he's disclosed. I predict at some point he will tweet classified information. Of course his sorrynotsorry defenders will point out that he can declassify any information he chooses, but that isn't what's going on. With all the tough talk about withholding classified information from Clinton (I think Paul Ryan suggested this), Trump is by far the biggest disclosure risk we've ever had. And this isn't some theoretical risk - it is readily apparent that Trump will continue to do so as long as he is in possession of classified information.

---

When Osama bin Laden was killed, President Obama was not content to explain that fact to the American people. His administration gratuitously disclosed that the raid on the al-Qaeda emir's compound in Pakistan produced a "trove" of actionable intelligence. From a national-security standpoint, this political grandstanding was a foolish: It gave al-Qaeda operatives a heads-up that their cells and activities had likely been exposed, providing them the opportunity to disappear before our forces could roll them up. And then there is the Obama administration's leak disclosing ( to the Washington Post ) General Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. This was done with obvious malevolence to hurt Flynn and Trump (who had named Flynn national-security adviser). The beneficiary, however, was Russia. It received valuable information that its ambassador was under surveillance and that whatever countermeasures the Kremlin's intelligence services had been taking had failed. This is apt to make Russian operatives more difficult to monitor in the future.

When Democrats mishandle classified information, they are earnest progressives. When Republicans do it, they are incompetent morons.
More to the point, does anyone believe that American presidents other than Trump do not make highly questionable disclosures in their negotiations with hostile regimes? Remember when Obama told Putin's factotum, Medvedev, to tell ol' Vlad he'd have much more "flexibility" to accommodate Russian concerns after his 2012 reelection patently signaling that Putin should just be patient and not pay too much attention to campaign rhetoric about dealing sternly with Moscow? And what of the to-and-fro over Obama's coveted Iran nuclear deal? Is it necessary to remind Democrats that Obama entered secret side deals with the "death to America" regime that were withheld from Congress and the American people? That was not an instance of what Trump was apparently doing sharing some intel with a hostile government in the (probably nave) hope of getting cooperation from that government against a common enemy. Obama was actually partnering with a hostile regime through arrangements that were against American interests and that promoted Iranian interests.

How about Secretary " Extremely Careless " herself, Hillary Clinton? If she had done the same thing Trump did, the media wouldn't be saying she was grossly negligent in handling top-secret information. We'd be hearing, instead, that what she did was fine because it was communicated in a high-level diplomatic exchange and that it's not like she handed the Russians a document that was "marked classified." Or more likely, we would be hearing nothing at all about her conversation with the Russians, because "current and former intelligence officials" would not be leaking to the Washington Post .

You should read the FBI reports of interviews with Mrs. Clinton's former State Department staffers sometime. In explaining their actions, in the context of an investigation about the mishandling the serial mishandling of classified information, one of the themes that comes through is: Statecraft involves a lot of exchanges of sensitive information with foreign governments; sometimes tough calls about transmitting information have to be made in the heat of the moment, and it's not always practical to weigh carefully the need to safeguard information against the imperative of getting it into the right hands promptly.

Could there have been more sympathy for Clinton's aides in the press and official Washington? The lesson appears to be that if administration officials repeat often enough the party line that "we were all working really hard, we all understand that classified information is really important, and we all really did our best to protect it," the media and intelligence-agency chiefs will forgive the transmission and storage of even thousands of classified e-mails on an unsecured server that was undoubtedly hacked by hostile intelligence services.

Provided, that is, that the administration officials are Democrats.

*
When Democrats mishandle classified information, they are earnest progressives who understandably suffer the occasional lapse while struggling to make the international community a better place. When Republicans do it, they are incompetent morons.

I'm not suggesting that Trump be cut slack. This seems like it could be a serious error, and one that was easily avoidable. But after a couple of years of hearing the Iran deal and Mrs. Clinton's homebrew server explained away, I'm just wondering when the media suddenly got so interested again in harmful White House dealings with hostile powers and the proper safeguarding of classified information.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review

Cal88;842841351 said:

---

Right, because if you are not in favor of the US policy overthrowing democratically elected regimes, [URL="https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled"][U]like the Clinton-led overthrow of the Honduras Zelaya government[/U][/URL], you're a Russian propagandist.

---

Notice the straw man argument here. Cal88 is truly the blame America first crowd.

It's not the opposition to certain American policies that make you anti-American. Lord knows there are plenty of American policies I have opposed. It is the support of the Russian policy of meddling in our elections that makes you anti-American. You are on their side.

GB54;842841237 said:

---

Repealing Obamacare otoh would be a political disaster for the Republicans.

---

On this note: the new CBO score for the AHCA is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/cbo-congressional-budget-office-health-care.html

23 million lose their insurance, 14 million next year alone.

At least that's one million better than the last version! Progress?

I'm just wondering if there is any defense of this bill. I know, the Senate plans on changing it. But if you're in the House, why would you want to vote for something like this? How is it supposed to help the country?