LaxPower Back-Up Stick

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:14 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:03 am

I am a very consistent hater of John Bolton.

Consistent meaning this is the first time you have made any comment about Bolton....gottcha.

Consistent in my circle; I do not know if I have ever said anything about him here. The same goes for Kristol. You will never hear me say a nice thing about these guys. They are thoroughly bad for America, and especially bad for our enlisted men and women.

These guys have never met a war they didn't love and they never met an enlistment agency they'd personally visit. Backbencher worms. Befriend him at your peril.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:31 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:14 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:03 am

I am a very consistent hater of John Bolton.

Consistent meaning this is the first time you have made any comment about Bolton....gottcha.

Consistent in my circle; I do not know if I have ever said anything about him here. The same goes for Kristol. You will never hear me say a nice thing about these guys. They are thoroughly bad for America, and especially bad for our enlisted men and women.

These guys have never met a war they didn't love and they never met an enlistment agency they'd personally visit. Backbencher worms. Befriend him at your peril.

What's your issue with Kristol? His consistency as a conservative? or failing to tote the water of the liar in chief?

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:34 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:31 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:14 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:03 am

I am a very consistent hater of John Bolton.

Consistent meaning this is the first time you have made any comment about Bolton....gottcha.

Consistent in my circle; I do not know if I have ever said anything about him here. The same goes for Kristol. You will never hear me say a nice thing about these guys. They are thoroughly bad for America, and especially bad for our enlisted men and women.

These guys have never met a war they didn't love and they never met an enlistment agency they'd personally visit. Backbencher worms. Befriend him at your peril.

What's your issue with Kristol? His consistency as a conservative? or failing to tote the water of the liar in chief?

Only inside the Beltway could a character like Bill Kristol be considered "conservative". The reason Kristol is so often asked to provide the “conservative” side of an issue is that his idea of conservatism has been so thoroughly discredited that hearing him makes liberals more content in their own beliefs. Kristol is pro government-expansion and civil rights abuses on nearly every issue.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:59 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:34 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:31 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:14 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:03 am

I am a very consistent hater of John Bolton.

Consistent meaning this is the first time you have made any comment about Bolton....gottcha.

Consistent in my circle; I do not know if I have ever said anything about him here. The same goes for Kristol. You will never hear me say a nice thing about these guys. They are thoroughly bad for America, and especially bad for our enlisted men and women.

These guys have never met a war they didn't love and they never met an enlistment agency they'd personally visit. Backbencher worms. Befriend him at your peril.

What's your issue with Kristol? His consistency as a conservative? or failing to tote the water of the liar in chief?

Only inside the Beltway could a character like Bill Kristol be considered "conservative". The reason Kristol is so often asked to provide the “conservative” side of an issue is that his idea of conservatism has been so thoroughly discredited that hearing him makes liberals more content in their own beliefs. Kristol is pro government-expansion and civil rights abuses on nearly every issue.

Gottcha...he doesn't fit your definition of conservative.

The Bolton book kerfuffle is another example of how well Pelosi is playing her hand.

Holding those articles was continues to pay off. And so smart not to bog down in a protracted court fight with Bolton over BS absolute immunity claims. Why go to court when you can get his testimony voluntarily by 3/17 or sooner?

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:59 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:34 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:31 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:14 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:03 am

I am a very consistent hater of John Bolton.

Consistent meaning this is the first time you have made any comment about Bolton....gottcha.

Consistent in my circle; I do not know if I have ever said anything about him here. The same goes for Kristol. You will never hear me say a nice thing about these guys. They are thoroughly bad for America, and especially bad for our enlisted men and women.

These guys have never met a war they didn't love and they never met an enlistment agency they'd personally visit. Backbencher worms. Befriend him at your peril.

What's your issue with Kristol? His consistency as a conservative? or failing to tote the water of the liar in chief?

Only inside the Beltway could a character like Bill Kristol be considered "conservative". The reason Kristol is so often asked to provide the “conservative” side of an issue is that his idea of conservatism has been so thoroughly discredited that hearing him makes liberals more content in their own beliefs. Kristol is pro government-expansion and civil rights abuses on nearly every issue.

Gottcha...he doesn't fit your definition of conservative.

Kristol doesn't fit anyone's definition of conservative other than a Democrat who doesn't want to consider that neocons and establishment Democrats share 100% of the same philosophy. All the 'conservatives' that the MSM interviews (Kristol, Boot, Navarro, now Bolton) are at their core very pro-government, no different than the average Democrat. Most conservatives have more in common with actual liberals like AOC and Bernie than they do with establishment Democrats, particularly in the area of civil rights.

Regardless of where you see the political positioning of Bolton, it is clear now from many press reports that his manuscript made it to the White House for security review about four weeks ago, and that it is exceedingly likely that the White House Counsel office (Cippilone) has read it.

If the manuscript did not contain what it is purported to have in it, I suspect the WH would actually be claiming it said no such thing, which is NOT what they are claiming. They are claiming the President did not say what the manuscript says he did.

So for those GOP senators in some danger in their districts for reelection, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they do not support calling Bolton (and then maybe would have to concede to a larger list of witnesses), their actions will be rightly seen as supporting a sham impeachment defense (just basically ignore rather than investigate further). If they do, they earn the wrath of Trump/Trumpists/current GOP base and make it harder to vote for acquittal in the impeachment trial, as it is quite likely that witnesses will just make the case against Trump even stronger.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:15 am Regardless of where you see the political positioning of Bolton, it is clear now from many press reports that his manuscript made it to the White House for security review about four weeks ago, and that it is exceedingly likely that the White House Counsel office (Cippilone) has read it.

If the manuscript did not contain what it is purported to have in it, I suspect the WH would actually be claiming it said no such thing, which is NOT what they are claiming. They are claiming the President did not say what the manuscript says he did.

So for those GOP senators in some danger in their districts for reelection, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they do not support calling Bolton (and then maybe would have to concede to a larger list of witnesses), their actions will be rightly seen as supporting a sham impeachment defense (just basically ignore rather than investigate further). If they do, they earn the wrath of Trump/Trumpists/current GOP base and make it harder to vote for acquittal in the impeachment trial, as it is quite likely that witnesses will just make the case against Trump even stronger.

It was reviewed at NSC by Vindman's twin brother...

You need to see someone for your BREITBART DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:23 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:15 am Regardless of where you see the political positioning of Bolton, it is clear now from many press reports that his manuscript made it to the White House for security review about four weeks ago, and that it is exceedingly likely that the White House Counsel office (Cippilone) has read it.

If the manuscript did not contain what it is purported to have in it, I suspect the WH would actually be claiming it said no such thing, which is NOT what they are claiming. They are claiming the President did not say what the manuscript says he did.

So for those GOP senators in some danger in their districts for reelection, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they do not support calling Bolton (and then maybe would have to concede to a larger list of witnesses), their actions will be rightly seen as supporting a sham impeachment defense (just basically ignore rather than investigate further). If they do, they earn the wrath of Trump/Trumpists/current GOP base and make it harder to vote for acquittal in the impeachment trial, as it is quite likely that witnesses will just make the case against Trump even stronger.

It was reviewed at NSC by Vindman's twin brother...

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:05 am The Bolton book kerfuffle is another example of how well Pelosi is playing her hand.

Holding those articles was continues to pay off. And so smart not to bog down in a protracted court fight with Bolton over BS absolute immunity claims. Why go to court when you can get his testimony voluntarily by 3/17 or sooner?

+1 Yup.

… drip, drip, gullywasher

When your talking points combust, cancel the news conference.

JUST IN: Group of Republican senators have canceled a news conference on impeachment that was scheduled for 11:35 a.m. ET -
@frankthorp

Now that GOP is starting to lose the witness argument, how hard do they push for Biden and other b s issues for their hero o d?

Romney is perhaps the start of the "gullywasher" - says (on camera) senators increasingly likely to want to hear more...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/romn ... -important

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:38 am When your talking points combust, cancel the news conference.

JUST IN: Group of Republican senators have canceled a news conference on impeachment that was scheduled for 11:35 a.m. ET -
@frankthorp

Now that GOP is starting to lose the witness argument, how hard do they push for Biden and other b s issues for their hero o d?

From Twitter:

Kasie Hunt
@kasie

CANCELLED: This morning's press conference with GOP Sens. Braun, Barrasso, Lankford, Lee, Graham no longer happening
10:28am · 27 Jan 2020 · TweetDeck

The perils of acquittal (at this point) for the GOP seem to me to be quite high. Course, i've thought that sort of thing before in one instance or another (see: the re-election of Shrub Bush)...

Acquit him now and see further...and MORE damning...evidence come out in the next couple weeks/months, and where exactly does that leave them, just before an election?

They are standing on their tippy-toes, like a ballerina, in that corner they've painted themselves into over the last couple decades...looks to me like they are perilously close to toppling over and going SPLAT into the wet red paint...

..

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:39 am Romney is perhaps the start of the "gullywasher" - says (on camera) senators increasingly likely to want to hear more...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/romn ... -important

No, can't be. Schiff hurt everyone's feelings by pointing out that Orange Duce was threatening his troops.

Can't wait to see the heads on pikes. Or the tweetstorm at the very least.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:23 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:14 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:03 am

I am a very consistent hater of John Bolton.

Consistent meaning this is the first time you have made any comment about Bolton....gottcha.

Consistent in my circle; I do not know if I have ever said anything about him here. The same goes for Kristol. You will never hear me say a nice thing about these guys. They are thoroughly bad for America, and especially bad for our enlisted men and women.

These guys have never met a war they didn't love and they never met an enlistment agency they'd personally visit. Backbencher worms. Befriend him at your peril.

This entire impeachment exercise really isn't about one's love of John Bolton or Bill Kristol. It is in the long run an exercise on the part of elected politicians to seek and provide some level of truth. We can start with the supposition ( likely true) that all pols are inherently compromised if not outright corrupt on some level, but the question at the end of the day in our democracy is how much corruption the public is willing to tolerate. A big part of what I see as current political corruption involves deviation from the truth. In this hyper partisan age our tolerance for such shenanigans seems to have risen to a seemingly unprecedented level, but perhaps this impeachment exercise will enable us to throttle back a notch or two.

calourie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:23 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:23 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:14 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:03 am

I am a very consistent hater of John Bolton.

Consistent meaning this is the first time you have made any comment about Bolton....gottcha.

Consistent in my circle; I do not know if I have ever said anything about him here. The same goes for Kristol. You will never hear me say a nice thing about these guys. They are thoroughly bad for America, and especially bad for our enlisted men and women.

These guys have never met a war they didn't love and they never met an enlistment agency they'd personally visit. Backbencher worms. Befriend him at your peril.

This entire impeachment exercise really isn't about one's love of John Bolton or Bill Kristol. It is in the long run an exercise on the part of elected politicians to seek and provide some level of truth. We can start with the supposition ( likely true) that all pols are inherently compromised if not outright corrupt on some level, but the question at the end of the day in our democracy is how much corruption the public is willing to tolerate. A big part of what I see as current political corruption involves deviation from the truth. In this hyper partisan age our tolerance for such shenanigans seems to have risen to a seemingly unprecedented level, but perhaps this impeachment exercise will enable us to throttle back a notch or two.

Apart from the never Trump republicans, all republicans are willing to accept infinite corruption. There is no democratic equivalent, or even close to the cult of Trump and his zombies.

Man, just catching up since posting the Time's article last night...and I think our friend PB might be deranged. [Insert irrelevant emoji of your choice].

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defe ... lewebshare

Mr. Bolton wrote in a draft of his forthcoming book that the president told him in August that he wanted to freeze foreign aid to Ukraine until the country aided investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.

Mr. Bolton’s claim goes to the heart of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry and contradicts the White House’s argument that the decision to hold up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine wasn’t related to the president’s push for investigations there. Democrats have said the president abused his power by leveraging aid approved by Congress to get a foreign leader to undertake actions that would benefit him politically.

Mr. Trump early Monday denied Mr. Bolton’s allegations.

“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” the president wrote on Twitter shortly after midnight. “In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.”

The president noted that he had released the aid to Ukraine in September without any announcement of an investigation, a move he took after the freeze became public.

Inside the White House, Mr. Trump’s attorneys were considering retooling their arguments to address the question of whether the Senate should seek testimony from Mr. Bolton and others, according to people familiar with the planning.

Among other lines, they may argue that the Justice Department quickly disputed Mr. Bolton’s account of sharing concerns about the Ukraine matter with Attorney General William Barr, and that the Senate should focus on evidence already vetted in the House’s impeachment process, the people said.

White House officials said they heard from concerned senators and their aides throughout Sunday evening about Mr. Bolton’s book, many of them inquiring how long the White House had known what it alleged. Some of those administration officials predicted the uproar would subside in the coming days. Many Trump administration officials are accustomed to shocking headlines related to the White House that bring intense bursts of pressure only to fade as other issues arise.

Senate Republicans, including Mike Braun of Indiana, Mike Lee of Utah and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina canceled a news conference that had been planned ahead of Monday’s trial session, pivoting to Twitter to make a case for witnesses favored by the Trump administration should Democrats succeed in winning enough support to subpoena Mr. Bolton and others to testify.

Mr. Graham said on Twitter that “if there is a desire and decision by the Senate to call Democratic witnesses, then at a minimum the Senate should allow President @realDonaldTrump to call all relevant witnesses he has requested.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) said in a statement Monday that the reports about Mr. Bolton’s book “strengthen the case for witnesses” and had “prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.” Ms. Collins is one of a handful of Republicans who had previously said she was open to witnesses."